ILNews

Opinions Dec. 13, 2013

December 13, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Everitt Dickey v. State of Indiana
10A01-1212-CR-587
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class A child molesting, rejecting Dickey’s argument that testimony about his physical abuse of the victim and her mother was improperly admitted. The court held that Dickey failed to preserve the argument for appeal because, while his attorney objected to a line of questioning about when Dickey’s relationship with the victim’s mother began to change, a continuing objection was not raised.

Indiana Supreme Court
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Thursday.
Demetrius Walker v. State of Indiana
49S02-1312-CR-804
Criminal. Affirms Walker’s conviction for resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor. Although he did not physically touch a police officer, Walker ignored orders to drop to the ground and instead moved toward the officer in an aggressive manner with his fist clenched. The Supreme Court found the totality of Walker’s conduct was sufficient to show an active threat of strength, violence or power.


7th Circuit Court of Appeals
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Thursday.
Kenny A. Jones, Sr. v. City of Elkhart, Indiana, et al.
12-3912
Criminal. Affirms summary judgment in favor of City of Elkhart and other defendants in a suit alleging a traffic stop and drunken-driving arrest were violations of the plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Summary judgment was permissible because the record showed ample probable cause for police to stop Jones, who later tested above the legal blood alcohol limit and was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT