ILNews

Opinions Jan. 28, 2011

January 28, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Keith Eberle v. State of Indiana
58A01-1003-CR-105
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony intimidation, Class C felony stalking, and two counts of Class B misdemeanor harassment due to text messages and phone calls from Eberle to an employer-issued cell phone that belonged to an Ohio County jail matron. Eberle raised four issues: whether the state established that Ohio County was a proper venue for trial; whether the trial court properly refused Eberle’s proposed venue instructions; whether sufficient evidence supports Eberle’s convictions; and whether the trial court’s failure to vacate lesser-included offenses that were merged for purposes of sentencing violated Indiana’s prohibition against double jeopardy.

Christopher West v. State of Indiana
24A04-1005-CR-342
Criminal. Affirms convictions of using fraud or misrepresentation in the offer or sale of a security, a Class C felony; the offer or sale of an unregistered security, a Class C felony; and the offer or sale of a security by an unregistered broker-dealer, a Class C felony. West raised the following issues: whether the trial court erred in denying West’s motion to dismiss; whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury; and whether there is sufficient evidence to support West’s convictions.
    
Dennis J. Turner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A05-1006-CR-427
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for burglary as a Class B felony.

State of Indiana v. Jermain Blue (NFP)
02A03-1003-CR-139
Criminal. Denies rehearing of Nov. 3, 2010, opinion regarding suppression of state’s evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant that was invalid under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

Travis R. Rush v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1006-CR-637
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery, a Class C felony.

John Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-677
Criminal. Affirms conviction of three counts of reckless homicide as Class C felonies.

Luiz Alves v. Damon R. Leichty, et al. (NFP)
71A03-1005-PL-301
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Leichty and other appellees-defendants. Also affirms trial court’s entry of judgment on counterclaim of counterclaim plaintiff Barnes & Thornburg in the amount of $93,992.40 plus costs.


Nikol Hutnik v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A04-1005-CR-298
Criminal. Affirms conviction of dealing in a schedule II controlled substance, a Class B felony.

O.V. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-JV-574
Juvenile. Affirms juvenile court’s order modifying O.V.’s probation by removing him from his home and placing him in a rehabilitation and treatment center outside of his home county.

Pretiss Huff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1008-PC-575
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of Huff’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at 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