ILNews

Opinions Dec. 23, 2010

December 23, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
Indiana Supreme Court
Gregory L. Galloway v. State of Indiana
33S01-1004-CR-163
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s rejection of the insanity defense. The trial court erred in this case by entering a verdict of guilty but mentally ill when the evidence presented reasonably led only to a conclusion that the defendant was legally insane at the time of the offense. Chief Justice Shepard and Justice Dickson dissent.

Today’s opinions
7th Circuit
USA v. Kevin Dortch
09-3260
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Rudy Lozano
Criminal. Affirms statutory maximum of 240 months imprisonment for Dortch, who pled guilty and only appealed his sentence. After robbing a bank that was located inside a drugstore in Munster, he led police on two high-speed chases through the nearby residential neighborhoods. At issue was whether enough evidence was presented regarding an officer’s hospital visit following the car chase to show “serious bodily injury.” However, the 7th Circuit found that any error was harmless in this case and that there was nothing unreliable about the officer’s testimony about his hospital stay, even though the 7th Circuit did write the government could have provided more information.

The Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Tax Court are closed Dec. 23 and 24.
 

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