ILNews

Opinions Jan. 30, 2012

January 30, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

State of Indiana v. Johnnie S. McCaa
56A04-1107-CR-341
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s grant of McCaa’s motion to suppress evidence, holding that due to the unusual circumstances of an initial traffic stop, police did not err in asking McCaa to drive his truck to another location, where he ultimately failed field sobriety tests.

Latoyia Billingsley v. State of Indiana
02A03-1107-CR-301
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended within 10 years of a prior infraction, holding that Billingsley’s driving record shows that her license had been previously suspended, and she had been convicted of driving while suspended within 10 years of the most recent offense.

A.T. (Mother) v. G.T. (Father)
39A05-1107-DR-335
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court’s denial of mother’s petition for a change of judge in a custody modification action filed by the father, holding that the trial court should have automatically granted the request for automatic change of judge under Trial Rule 76(B). Furthermore, the trial court should not have held the modification hearing, as it was deprived of jurisdiction by the timely filing of the Trial Rule 76(B) request.

Fletcher Coleman and Dorothy Coleman v. Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Organization, Inc., and Northeast Neighborhood Council, Inc. (NFP)
71A05-1106-CT-300
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s denial of the Colemans’ motion to strike portions of Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Organization’s affidavits, finding no genuine issues of material fact exist.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.S., minor child, and T.S. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, Scott County Office (NFP)
72A01-1107-JT-329
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Anthony A. May v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1107-CR-697
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child.

Andre Perry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1105-CR-438
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm, three counts of Class B felony criminal confinement and one count of Class C felony robbery.

Kristen Leach v. Steven Leach (NFP)
39A01-1108-DR-332
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order granting custody of children to father.

Jesse C.E. Rayford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
01A02-1106-CR-554
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, but remands for resentencing, holding that the combined term of imprisonment and period of probation should not exceed one year.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT