ILNews

Opinions Dec. 16, 2010

December 16, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
William Hurst v. State of Indiana
49A02-1004-CR-378
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained upon the execution of a search warrant. To the extent the trial court concluded that Eric Thomas was inherently credible simply because he was a cooperating citizen informant, the trial court erred. A texted photo to Thomas corroborated the hearsay and there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause.

Anne W. Murphy, et al. v. Paul Terrell, et al.
49A04-1003-PL-198
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Terrell and the class on their suit for injunctive relief against the state. Unsuccessful applicants for Medicaid disability benefits do not have a constitutional right to an in-person administrative hearing. Remands for summary judgment in favor of the state.

St. Mary Medical Center v. Marsha Bakewell
45A03-1004-CT-227
Civil tort. Affirms grant of Bakewell’s motion to correct error. Bakewell’s allegation may proceed under a premises liability theory, even though originally she also pursued as a medical malpractice claim.

Lightpoint Impressions, LLC v. Metropolitan Dev. Comm. of Marion County
49A02-1004-MI-435
Miscellaneous. Affirms that the Metropolitan Development Commission may hear appeals of decisions of the Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals. Reverses grant of the MDC’s motion for summary judgment because it’s not clear whether the MDC had issued a final decision in the matter before Lightpoint appealed.

City of Kokomo, et al. v. Florence Pogue, et al.
34A02-1003-MI-356
Miscellaneous. Reverses denial of Kokomo’s motion to dismiss a remonstrance petition filed by a group of landowners whose land Kokomo wants to annex. The trial court erred in finding certain waivers of the right to remonstrate in exchange for connecting to the sewer system to be ineffective. Excluding those people’s signatures on the remonstrance petition causes the percentage of valid landowner signatures to fall below the statutorily-mandated minimum 65 percent.

R.D. v. Review Board
93A02-1005-EX-559
Civil. Reverses denial of R.D.’s application to attend the Art Institute for retraining because of the cost difference between that school and Ivy Tech. There is no substantial evidence supporting the review board’s denial. R.D.s’ request satisfies the “reasonable cost” requirement of 20 C.F.R. section 617.22(a)(6) and is consistent with the purpose of the Trade Act of 1974. Remands for further proceedings. Chief Judge Baker dissents.

Joseph Prewitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A05-1004-CR-314
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft. Remands with instructions to award the proper amount of credit time and to correct clerical errors.

Carlos Morales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-599
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony sexual battery and reverses conviction of Class D felony criminal confinement. Remands with instructions to vacate the criminal confinement conviction.

Byron Dixon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1005-CR-314
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony carjacking.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.R.; C.P.R. v. IDCS and Guardian Ad Litem program (NFP)
47A04-1007-JT-458
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Joseph Prewitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A01-1004-CR-238
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are suspended.

Terrence L. Oliver v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-0912-CR-564
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT