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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT