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

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