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. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  2. 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

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT