ILNews

Opinions Jan. 31, 2012

January 31, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Dale J. Atkins v. Michael Zenk
11-1891
Civil. Affirms U.S. District Court’s denial of habeas corpus petition, holding Atkins did not prove his claim that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of trial counsel.

Indiana Supreme Court
Henry C. Bennett and Schupan & Sons, Inc. v. John Richmond and Jennifer Richmond
20S03-1105-CV-293
Civil. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed a psychologist to testify on behalf of a plaintiff in a personal injury case as to the cause of a brain injury or in finding that the psychologist’s testimony was based on reliable scientific principles.  

Reginald N. Person, Jr. v. Carol A. Shipley
20S03-1110-CT-609
Civil tort. Holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony offered by a personal injury defendant in a rear-end collision case. Dr. Turner’s opinions were based on reliable scientific principles that could be applied to the facts at issue.

Indiana Court of Appeals
William R. Wallace v. State of Indiana
26A01-1101-CR-9
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order denying Wallace’s motion to dismiss a charge of Class D felony voyeurism for videotaping without consent a sexual encounter he had with a woman.

Nathan Anderson v. State of Indiana
49A05-1105-CR-243
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for murder, but reverses convictions of and vacates sentences for burglary and abuse of a corpse, holding Anderson had been denied his request for counsel prior to making statements in interrogation and that the admission of that testimony into evidence at trial influenced the jury’s decision.

Steven Nowling v. State of Indiana
31A01-1010-CR-552
Criminal. On petition for rehearing, the appellate court affirmed its original decision affirming the trial court, holding that during trial Nowling never objected to testimony by a forensic scientist who affirmed the presence of methamphetamine in a pen hull seized from Nowling’s home.

Christopher Stark v. State of Indiana
49A05-1104-CR-152
Criminal. On interlocutory appeal, affirms trial court’s denial of Stark’s motion to suppress evidence that he had a handgun in his possession, holding that a police officer found the gun when retrieving Starks’ coat and that any intrusion in finding the gun was minimal.

Ronald D. Tiede v. State of Indiana (NFP)
91A04-1105-CR-248
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to withdraw guilty pleas to two counts of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and affirms trial court’s modification of the sentence contained in Tiede’s plea agreement.

Jason Schapker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1106-CR-258
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Gary Hollin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A01-1108-CR-389
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentence following determination that Hollin violated his probation.

In the Matter of M.K., I.K., and N.K.; R.K. and E.K. v. Indiana Department of Child Services and Stephen P. Griebel (NFP)
02A03-1104-JC-151
Juvenile. Reverses trial court’s determination that a couple’s three children were children in need of services, holding that the Department of Child Services was overzealous in removing the children from the parents’ care at a time when the family was intact but had suffered a series of unfortunate circumstances.

Daddys 'O Pub, LLC v. Purkey Enterprises, Inc. (NFP)
29A02-1105-PL-439
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s determination that an 1897 deed did not create an easement in Purkey Enterprises’ building that would enable the owners of an adjoining pub to use its stairway to access the second story of the pub’s building.

Nick Khanthamany v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1106-CR-497
Criminal. Affirms convictions of felony murder and conspiracy to commit robbery.

James Eubanks, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1105-CR-212
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony burglary.

Samantha Bradley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-513
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Susan Kohl v. Duane Kohl (NFP)
34A05-1105-DR-289
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s determination that that husband’s pension should not be included as a marital asset, but finding that the wife presented sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that an equal division of marital property is just and reasonable; remands to the trial court with instructions to award 60 percent of the marital estate to the wife and 40 percent to the husband.

Brien Clayton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1102-CR-138
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, finding harmless any error in the admission of opinion testimony and sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions 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. 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