ILNews

Opinions Jan. 23, 2014

January 23, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
A.J.R. v. State of Indiana
46A03-1306-JV-243
Juvenile. Holds that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the officer’s testimony, and the evidence is sufficient to prove A.J.R. shot two cattle and to sustain his adjudications for criminal mischief. However, concluding A.J.R.’s actions did not constitute mutilation or torture of an animal, the court reverses his adjudications for cruelty to an animal.

Chubb Custom Insurance Company, et al. v. Standard Fusee Corporation
49A02-1301-PL-91
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment and award of defense costs in favor of Standard Fusee Corp. Concludes that the total pollution exclusion clause in Chubb Custom’s comprehensive general liability insurance policies is applicable to Standard Fusee’s liability for the release of perchlorate and therefore its duty to defend and indemnify is not triggered.

Johnathon R. Aslinger v. State of Indiana
35A02-1303-CR-296
Criminal. The trial court erred in admitting the evidence seized in violation of Aslinger’s Fourth Amendment rights and in imposing consecutive habitual substance offender sentence enhancements. Reverses convictions of possession of methamphetamine and paraphernalia and remands in Case No. 127. Instructs the trial court order the HSO enhancements be served concurrently. Concludes that, in Case No. 152, the trial court did not err in excluding Aslinger’s jury instruction, and his sentence for dealing methamphetamine is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and character of the offender. Judge Robb concurs in separate opinion.

State of Indiana v. DeAngelo Banks
49A02-1303-CR-235
Criminal. Affirms grant of Banks’ motion to suppress his confession of murder. The record reveals that the detective’s advisement did not inform Banks that he had the right to have counsel present during the questioning at issue and thus failed to properly advise Banks of his Miranda rights. The trial court considered the evidence presented of Banks’ mental illness, heard his own testimony, and came to the conclusion that his statement was not voluntary. There is substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion.

Dexter Hawkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1305-CR-233
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: R.A.B. (Minor Child) and Z.T.B. (Mother) & R.W.B. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

02A03-1306-JT-234
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Tyrone Shelton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1308-CR-387
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony serious violent felon in possession of a firearm.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted 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 work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT