ILNews

Opinions Dec. 19, 2013

December 19, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
USA v. Roger Loughry
13-1385
Criminal. Affirms Loughry’s conviction on 16 child-pornography charges after a second trial. Loughry was convicted on the same 16 counts previously, but the 7th Circuit reversed because evidence of “hardcore” pornography that was admitted at the first trial was ruled an abuse of discretion. On appeal of his conviction after the second trial, the 7th Circuit rejected Loughry’s claim that providing jurors during deliberations with images and videos that were admitted into evidence was highly prejudicial.

Thursday’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court
Tyrice J. Halliburton v. State of Indiana
20S00-1206-LW-560
Life without parole. Affirms murder conviction and sentence of life without parole. The trial court did not err in admitting certain evidence. Concludes the trial court committed no error, let alone fundamental error, by admitting photographs into evidence. Finds the court’s limiting instruction was erroneous, but Halliburton made no claim that the error was fundamental and no such fundamental error occurred.

Scott Speers v. State of Indiana
55S01-1312-CR-841
Criminal. Affirms the trial court did not err by admitting the DNA evidence over Speers’ Confrontation Clause objection. A lab technician involved in a chain of custody of DNA evidence does not have to testify in order to satisfy the demands of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Brittney Watson v. State of Indiana
71A03-1303-CR-91
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction. Based on the evidence, the jury could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that Watson either knew or intended that the victim would be killed and acted in concert with Steven and Stephon Rice to accomplish the deed.

In the Matter of the Estate of Stephen T. Hannebaum, Deceased, Renada Fay Hannebaum v. Mary Rebecca Hannebaum and Stephen T. Hannebaum, II, as Personal Representatives of Stephen T. Hannebaum
81A05-1301-ES-17
Estate. Affirms order finding Renada Hannebaum had forfeited her right to inherit from Stephen Hannebaum’s estate. The pieces of evidence, taken together, suggest a continuing behavior that is sufficient to sustain the trial court’s finding of an adulterous relationship between Renada and Doug Wilson in April 2011. The trial court properly found Renada left Stephen permanently rather than temporarily.
 
William Hinesley, III v. State of Indiana
55A05-1302-PC-80
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief from conviction of Class A felony child molesting. The post-conviction court properly determined that Hinesley failed to demonstrate that his counsel’s performance was deficient or prejudicial and his claim of prosecutorial misconduct is unavailable.

Meridian Mutual Insurance Company, n/k/a State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company v. Majestic Block & Supply, Inc., n/k/a Tutewiler Corporation
49A05-1210-PL-533
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Majestic Block & Supply. Majestic’s coverage was not barred by late notice or known loss, it did not benefit from a double recovery and it was entitled to prejudgment interest. However, State Auto’s arguments are not so frivolous, unreasonable or groundless as to require an award of attorney fees to Majestic.

Dana Companies, LLC v. Chaffee Rentals, a/k/a, Chaffee Rentals and Storage, BRC Rubber Group, Inc., Charles V. Chaffee, Karen J. Chaffee and Clifford Chaffee
92A03-1208-CC-358
Civil collections. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. Affirms the trial court rulings that in a contract dispute over industrial pollution cleanup costs that the doctrine of fortuity did not apply in Dana’s complaint against BRC. Dana is entitled to collect damages from BCR, which rented the industrial site Dana formerly owned, but only for the non-PCB contamination caused solely by BRC’s use. Remands to the trial court with orders to reduce the total awards, including prejudgment interest, from $154,632 to $7,383.

Edwin Rwoti v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1304-CR-181
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony sexual battery.

Raphael Miles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1306-CR-295
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Maxwell Swisher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A04-1304-CR-173
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

In the Matter of: J.C. and A.M.C. (Minor Children), Children in Need of Services, and A.K.C. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
29A04-1305-JC-216
Juvenile. Affirms J.C.’s designation as a child in need of services but vacates with respect to A.M.C.

T. Kyle Buehner v. Evansville Teachers Federal Credit Union (NFP)
82A01-1302-CC-61
Civil collection. Affirms judgment in favor of the credit union, finding it had authority to seize funds in Buehner’s savings account to satisfy his father’s debt.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: D.W., Minor Child, G.W., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1304-JT-333
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Jeffrey O. Gilstrap v. Michael D. Mount (NFP)
39A01-1303-SC-103
Small claim. Affirms denial of Gilstrap’s motion for relief from judgment.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. "...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.

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

ADVERTISEMENT