ILNews

Opinions Feb. 11, 2013

February 11, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Gray v. State of Indiana
49A02-1205-CR-352
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence of Class D felony possession of cocaine, holding that the court erred in failing to allow a defendant to play a tape of an officer’s deposition that contained inconsistent statements, but that the error was harmless because other evidence at trial strongly pointed to Gray’s guilt.

Edwin Jones v. State of Indiana
49A02-1204-CR-292
Criminal. Affirms Class A misdemeanor conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, holding that Jones’ Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause were not violated because the court allowed a state trooper to testify about a certification of a breath-test machine rather than the signer of the certification.

AT&T v. Atlas Excavating, Inc. (NFP)
79A02-1207-PL-552
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s denial of AT&T’s motion for summary judgment and remands the matter to the lower court with instructions to vacate its judgment in favor of Atlas, enter a summary judgment in favor of AT&T, and conduct proceedings to determine damages.

Tammy Syers v. JKL Construction & Home Maintenance (NFP)
82A05-1205-CC-276
Civil collection. Affirms trial court’s judgment in favor of JKL Construction & Home Maintenance. Concludes JKL’s mechanic’s lien was timely filed and that the lien is not void because of an overstatement in amount.

Thomas Oakley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1204-CR-148
Criminal. Affirms five-year sentence following a guilty plea to carrying a handgun without a license, a Class C felony.

Manuel Lloyd Jamersen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1206-CR-257
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Count I child molesting, a Class A felony; and Count II attempted child molesting, a Class A felony. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Jamersen.

Ernestine Waldon, Christine Hampshire, and Vergie Small v. Donna Wilkins, MD, Joshua Williams, and Rodney Barber, and Carl Barber, Jr. (NFP)
18A02-1203-PL-222
Civil plenary. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands with instructions to reinstate Waldon’s replevin claim. Concludes the trial court properly dismissed Waldon’s claims against appellees stemming from the execution of the trial court’s demolition order under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity and immunity arising from the Indiana Tort Claims Act. However, finds the trial court erred when it dismissed Waldon’s replevin claim contained in the amended complaint.  

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to 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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT