ILNews

Opinions Feb. 25, 2013

February 25, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court decision was posted Friday after IL deadline:
Felix C. Sickels v. State of Indiana
20S03-1206-CR-308
Criminal/support. Reverses Court of Appeals and affirms trial court ruling that the custodial parent of children who have been emancipated as adults is a victim in cases of non-payment of child support.

Monday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Jose Maldonado-Morales v. State of Indiana
20A05-1205-CR-255
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony conviction of domestic battery, ruling that a jury instruction on the doctrine of transferred intent was not an abuse of discretion and that the state was not required to prove that Maldonado-Morales knowingly or intentionally struck his ex-wife in the presence of their child.  

Steven Bethel v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A03-1203-PC-139
Post-conviction. Affirms finding that Bethel waived claims forming the bases of his request for post-conviction relief.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: L.M. and M.M. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1208-JT-678
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Juan Beamon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1207-CR-571
Criminal. Reverses and remands conviction of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the charge and ordering the trial court to enter a judgment on Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

James Eskridge v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1111-PC-629
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief from revocation of parole.

Tamara Downie, formerly Tamara Reed v. Jason Reed (NFP)

20A03-1208-DR-344
Domestic relations. Affirms order modifying child support.

Darrell L. Weightman and Donna Weightman v. Brian A. Nellis (NFP)

65A01-1207-CT-309
Civil tort. Affirms judgment on jury verdict in favor of Nellis on the Weightmans’ negligence claim.

Michael T. Ivy v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A03-1207-CR-331
Criminal. Affirms sentence of conviction of battery as a Class A felony.

Shawn J. Fuller v. Carrie R. Fuller (NFP)
12A04-1205-DR-251
Domestic relations. Affirms trial court’s contempt finding and judgment in favor of Shawn Fuller.

Martel D. Cross v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1207-CR-369
Criminal. Affirms 30-year sentence for conviction of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: L.W., M.R. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

19A01-1208-JT-393
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Robert Stokes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-500
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions Monday by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions by 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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT