ILNews

Opinions Feb. 27, 2014

February 27, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. John A. Peters III
12-3830
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence discovered during the search of a car in which Peters was a passenger. The District Court committed no error in crediting the testimony of an experienced police officer who, after observing two cars traveling in tandem for a period of time, said he credibly believed that the trailing car was approximately 75 feet behind the lead car at a speed of approximately 60 miles-per-hour. If an officer knowing these facts could reasonably conclude that this combination of speed and distance violated Indiana law, that is all that is necessary to support probable cause.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. Chad Bryant
32A01-1306-CR-282
Criminal. Reverses dismissal of charges against Bryant for Class D felony operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator. The state properly charged Bryant with Class D felony operating a vehicle as an HTV as a matter of law, and that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted Bryant’s motion to dismiss.

State of Indiana v. Michael E. Cunningham
19A05-1310-CR-489
Criminal. Affirms grant of Cunningham’s motion to suppress marijuana and a marijuana pipe. The state has failed to establish that Cunningham’s purported consent to the pat down was constitutionally valid. As such, the discovery of the marijuana in the pill bottle during the illegal pat down and the subsequent discovery of the pipe must be suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree. Judge Brown dissents.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.G. and C.G. (Minor Children) and B.G. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
84A05-1305-JT-219
Juvenile. Dismisses mother’s appeal of order terminating her parental rights to two of her seven children. The mother forfeited her right to appeal because she failed to file a timely notice of appeal.

Kathy K. Brunner v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1307-EX-592
Agency action. Affirms denial of claim for unemployment benefits.

M.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1307-JV-367
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing an act that would be Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult.

Brad S. Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1306-CR-485
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class C felony robbery and affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery and Class D felony domestic battery.

Michael L. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1109-CR-531
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Jose Ayala Cuevas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1306-CR-298
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness and Class B misdemeanor reckless driving.

Anna Marie Kelley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A05-1307-CR-333
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class D felony auto theft.

David E. Matney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1308-CR-372
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony auto theft.

David Burroughs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1307-CR-360
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony burglary.

Paul Farrell v. Deborah Farrell (NFP)
40A01-1307-DR-305
Domestic relation. Affirms in part. Concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the calculation and distribution of the marital estate. Remands with instructions for the trial court to replace the joint and several liability language consistent with its intent that the medical debt be equally divided between the parties.

Johnny D. Wayt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A05-1307-PC-338
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: E.G. v. Eskenazi Health Midtown Community Mental Health Center (NFP)
49A02-1308-MH-724
Mental health. Affirms order concluding that Midtown proved by clear and convincing evidence that E.G. was dangerous to others and ordering him to take his prescribed medications.

Rapkin Group, Inc., as a minority Member on behalf and for the benefit of The Eye Center Group, LLC and Surgicenter Group, LLC. v. L. Marshall Roch, M.D. and Lynnette M. Watkins, M.D. (NFP)
18A02-1302-CT-193
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Drs. Roch and Watkins in Rapkin’s claim for actual fraud, constructive fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT