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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT