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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT