ILNews

Opinions Feb. 22, 2012

February 22, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court

Jerrme Cartwright v. State of Indiana
82S01-1109-CR-564
Criminal. Affirms convictions of attempted battery and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Finds no evidence of pretext in the state’s strike of venireperson Bard, the only African-American.

Joey Addison v. State of Indiana
49S05-1105-CR-267
Criminal. Uses the fundamental error doctrine to examine Addison’s Batson claim on appeal. The state’s mischaracterization of Turner’s voir dire testimony, its failure to engage Turner in any meaningful voir dire examination to explore his alleged undue reliance on the testimony of professionals, and the comparative juror analysis, when taken collectively, leave the firm impression that the state’s proffered explanation for striking venireperson Turner was a mere pretext based on race, making a fair trial impossible. Remands for a new trial.

Antwon Abbott v. State of Indiana
34S02-1202-CR-110
Criminal. Remands to the trial court to revise Abbott’s sentence from the maximum 20 years to 12 years for possession of cocaine as a Class B felony. But for the police officer’s choice of location in stopping the car in which Abbott was a passenger, he would have received no more than the maximum three-year sentence for possessing less than three grams of cocaine. Justices David and Dickson dissent.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ernesto Gutierrez v. State of Indiana
44A03-1106-CR-257
Criminal. Reverses convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting. The trial court erred in admitting improper vouching testimony that invaded the province of the jury and prejudiced Gutierrez’s substantial rights. Remands for a new trial.

In the Matter of the Adoption of M.S.T.; R.P.M.T. v. C.K. and J.P. (NFP)
02A03-1106-AD-258
Adoption. Affirms grant of petition for C.K. and J.P. to adopt M.S.T.

Carol Showalter v. Donald Showalter (NFP)
20A03-1107-DR-332
Domestic relation. Remands for the trial court to explain its calculation of the parenting time credit and, if necessary, to recalculate the parenting time credit and father’s child support obligation. The trial court should also address the issue of whether son Brandt’s participation in ROTC should be credited toward his share of post-secondary education expenses.

Brent Goodman v. GMH Snyder Farms, Inc. (NFP)
53A05-1110-CT-531
Civil tort. Affirms order granting a motion to transfer venue from Monroe County to Montgomery County filed by GMH Snyder Farms.

Chuck W. Adams v. Mauro Chavez, M.D., Prison Health Services, Gil Kaufman, Craig Underwood, Dean Reiger (NFP)
49A05-1104-CT-218
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Chavez and other defendants on a complaint for medical malpractice.

LaDawn D. Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1106-CR-271
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony battery.

Scott W. Bishop v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1108-CR-797, 48A05-1108-CR-441
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

James Ingram v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-578
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

Philip Gregory Yeary v. State of Indiana (NFP)
78A01-1108-CR-388
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Jeremy L. Hopkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1104-CR-342
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Michael Dunfee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A03-1106-CR-279
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while driving privileges are forfeited for life, Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated in a manner that endangers a person, and being a habitual substance offender. Reverses order that Dunfee pay restitution.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT