ILNews

Opinions Dec. 16, 2011

December 16, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Justin M. Corwin v. State of Indiana
79A04-1005-CR-296
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class C felony possession of a controlled substance, holding that a police officer exceeded the limits of a search as defined by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968), and therefore, the evidence he obtained in the search should not have been admitted at trial.

Will Arline v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1103-CR-133
Criminal. Affirms conviction of three counts of Class C felony forgery.

Robert Morelock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1108-CR-736
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony invasion of privacy.

Arthur Dedrick Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1105-CR-230
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

Frederick Allen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-CR-2
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder.

Mark Koers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1105-CR-243
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to suppress evidence.

Diana L. Gipson v. Craig G. Gipson (NFP)
79A05-1103-DR-138
Domestic relation. Remands to the trial court to recalculate spousal maintenance award, holding the court did not account for the disparity in earnings potential.

Harvey Byrd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-478
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery, Class B felony criminal confinement and Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

Chris Fields v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1105-CR-223
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Mario J. Gaston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1105-CR-198
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery.

Jeryl R. Bingham v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1107-PC-409
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions at 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