ILNews

Opinions July 11, 2013

July 11, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Danny Harmon
12-1502
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of marijuana conspiracy and related offenses and 360-month sentence. A trial continuance did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and the disclosure of Harmon’s prior drug conviction did not deprive him of a fair trial. The court did not make a mistake in finding Harmon responsible for more than 10,000 kilograms of marijuana.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Lindsay Tatusko v. State of Indiana
29A04-1208-CR-413
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony forgery and Class D felony theft. Tatusko’s electronic alteration of an authorized tip amount constitutes forgery. She also hasn’t shown she was denied effective assistance of trial counsel.

Kenneth Smith v. State of Indiana

49A02-1212-CR-1017
Criminal. Affirms order Smith pay $1,380 in restitution to William Kirkham. The trial court did not err when it allowed the state to present evidence at the restitution hearing of the victim’s actual loss that was not presented during Smith’s theft trial. The trial court also inquired into Smith’s ability to pay restitution.

In the Matter of the Paternity and Maternity of Infant T.
67A05-1301-JP-36
Juvenile. Reverses denial of father M.F.’s request to establish paternity and affirms the denial of surrogate M.F.’s petition to disestablish maternity. Her request is not cognizable so the trial court properly denied it. Indiana law presumes the birth mother is the child’s biological mother. Remands for the trial court to enter an order establishing M.F.’s paternity.

Robert M. Gates v. City of Indianapolis
49A04-1210-OV-503
Ordinance violation. Reverses denial of Gates’ request for a jury trial on three municipal ordinances the city alleges Gates violated. The nature of the underlying substantive claims brought against him is quasi-criminal, and he is entitled to a jury trial under Article I, Section 20 of the Indiana Constitution. Remands with instructions to grant the jury trial request.

Paul Monet Fontaine v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A03-1211-CR-476
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony forgery.

Cecilia Kelly v. GEPA Hotel Owner Indianapolis LLC, GEPA Hotel Operator Indianapolis LLC, and Schindler Elevator Corporation (NFP)
49A04-1210-CT-509
Civil tort. Reverses grant of summary judgment in favor of GEPA Hotel Owners Indianapolis, GEPA Hotel Operator and Schindler Elevator Corp. on Kelly’s negligence lawsuit.

David L. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)

46A04-1212-PC-639
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Dana L. Smith v. James L. Smith (NFP
)
49A05-1210-DR-554
Domestic relation. Affirms order denying Dana Smith’s motion to correct error following the entry of the decree dissolving the Smiths’ marriage. Remands with instructions for the trial court to add an exhibit nunc pro tunc and to redistribute the decree to the parties.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no 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. 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