ILNews

Opinions Dec. 7, 2012

December 7, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Terry L. Brown v. Tammy S. Brown
77A01-1204-PL-180
Civil plenary. Reverses civil judgment in favor of Terry Brown’s ex-wife. The trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence regarding criminal offenses he committed more than 20 years ago. Remands for further proceedings.

Robert Geller and Judy Geller v. Kurt P. Kinney, Holly Kinney, and A.M. Rentals, Inc.
29A02-1111-PL-1202
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of A.M. Rentals Inc. and the trial court’s calculation of damages for the Gellers against the Kinneys. Holds that the exculpatory clause of the lease and management agreement exempts A.M. from liability for its failure to perform its duties to the Gellers under I.C. 25-34.1-10-10(a)(3)(C). Holds that applying the exculpatory clause on these facts is not contrary to public policy. Holds that the trial court’s conclusion that the Gellers’ sale of their home mitigated the Kinneys’ damages to the Gellers is not clearly erroneous. Judge Kirsch dissents.

Verdyer Clark v. State of Indiana
49A04-1202-CR-66
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony battery. The state did not prove its case because the only evidence it offered to prove Clark was over 18 at the time of the crime was inadmissible hearsay. Remands so that the state may decide whether to retry Clark.

Phillip T. Billingsley v. State of Indiana
02A05-1204-CR-216
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana. Holds that based on the totality of the facts and circumstances available to the responding officer at the time he detained Billingsley, the officer initiated an investigatory stop of Billingsley based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted into evidence marijuana seized following the officer’s detention of Billingsley. Judge Kirsch dissents.
 
Brenda Varo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-CR-144
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony conspiracy to commit battery and Class D felony criminal gang activity.

In Re the Marriage of Lisa L. Shisler and Ned L. Shisler; Ned L. Shisler v. Lisa L. Shisler (NFP)
57A03-1109-DR-450
Domestic relation. Reverses distribution of marital estate and remands for further proceedings.

Vickie Jessie v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-CR-413
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct and order that Jessie pay $2,090 in restitution to her victim.

Michael R. Krohn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1203-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury.

Quinn Nelson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1203-CR-145
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Anthony White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-321
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony attempted theft and Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Deandre L. Mathews v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-CR-416
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Andrea Averitte v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1203-CR-251
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony forgery.

Michael McClellan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1204-CR-180
Criminal. Affirms sentence following conviction of two counts of Class C felony stalking.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT