Opinions Feb. 23, 2012

February 23, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Eriberto Quiroz v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses Quiroz’s conviction of Class C felony child molesting because that conviction along with a Class A felony child molesting conviction constitutes double jeopardy as the same evidence supports both convictions. Remands for the trial court to vacate the Class C felony conviction. The trial court did not commit fundamental error in including in the jury instructions a copy of the charging information that included the counts against Quiroz that had previously been dismissed.

Bernard Short v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the results of the certified chemical breath test nor did it err by rejecting Short’s proposed jury instruction.

Keith Woodson v. State of Indiana
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court was not clearly erroneous in finding that attorney Harper’s cross-examination of Owens and Johnson was not ineffective and that Harper was not ineffective for not attempting to procure the services of an eyewitness identification expert for Woodson’s second trial.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of John S. Zakrowski; Marsha L. Cummins v. Thomas L. Zakrowski (NFP)
Guardianship. Affirms denial of Cummins’ application for permission to participate in the guardianship proceedings.

S.D. v. B.D. (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms granting primary physical custody to mother. Reverses finding of contempt for father’s failure to pay for day care.

Sandra Rivas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Jeffrey Roser v. Jennifer Roser (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms decision to lower father’s obligation to the minimum support obligation and remands for the trial court to revise the obligation to $18.

Daniel O'Reilly v. Ruth Doherty (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms order husband pay $30,000 of wife’s attorney fees.

Charles Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms 20-year sentence for Class B felony dealing in a schedule II controlled substance.

Kenneth Willis Gibbs-El v. Arthur Hegewald (NFP)
Civil tort. Affirms dismissal of Gibbs-El’s complaint against a former employee of the Indiana Department of Correction.

Hawkins Auto Stores, Inc. v. Brent F. Hehr (NFP)
Small claim. Affirms order that Hawkins Auto Stores pay Hehr $3,395 for repayment of funds paid by Hehr for services he never received.

Joseph Apongule v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.