ILNews

Opinions Dec. 21, 2012

December 21, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Steven E. Malloch v. State of Indiana
17A03-1201-CR-37
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting for an incident involving his stepdaughter. There was no prosecutorial misconduct and the trial court did not err by admitting Malloch’s apology letter to C.P. Although Malloch did not receive a perfect trial, the appellate judges are confident he received a fair trial.

Kenneth S. Tipton v. State of Indiana
47A01-1201-CR-4
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony criminal recklessness. Believes someone shooting a gun at a residence may, for purposes of a criminal recklessness prosecution, create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person even if the resident is away from home at the moment of the shooting.

Patrick Austin v. State of Indiana
20A03-1112-CR-588
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for two counts of Class A felony possession of cocaine. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in continuing Austin’s trial. Sentence is not inappropriate as Austin was caught transporting cocaine worth over four million dollars, and he had a prior felony conviction and two firearms-related arrests, and had previously been found with one million dollars in cash, which police seized.

Charles D. Stutz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A04-1205-CR-255
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies resisting law enforcement and intimidation.

Michael R. Anderson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1204-CR-220
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle while never having received a driver’s license, Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana as a Class D felony.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of B.W., Minor Child; R.C., Father v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1204-JT-173
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Joseph Lamar Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1206-CR-316
Criminal. Affirms sentence following conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana after a jury found Johnson guilty of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and found he had previously been convicted of possession of marijuana.

Anthony K. McCullough v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-CR-955
Criminal. Grants rehearing and reverses previous decision. Now affirms the revocation of McCullough’s probation.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT