ILNews

Opinions July 18, 2011

July 18, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David Delagrange v. State of Indiana
49A02-1010-CR-1086
Criminal. Affirms partial denial of motion to dismiss. The state has alleged that Delagrange knowingly or intentionally attempted to create an image of sexual conduct, which is a sufficient statement of Delagrange’s mental state to survive a motion to dismiss. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Baker dissents.

Nathan D. Hawkins v. State of Indiana

79A02-1101-CR-100
Criminal. Affirms denial of Hawkins' sentence modification. The 365-day period during which the trial court has sole discretion to grant a modification began when Hawkins was originally sentenced, not when he was re-sentenced after appeal. Because his motion was filed outside of the one-year period and the prosecutor didn’t consent to a modification, the modification is properly denied. Chief Judge Robb dissents with separate opinion.

Donald Troutner v. State of Indiana
91A04-1012-CR-796
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery and concurrent sentence because the state presented the same evidence to also support Troutner’s conviction of Class B felony robbery. The trial court erred when it limited the testimony of Troutner’s niece, but it was a harmless error, so the robbery conviction is affirmed.

BP Products North America, et al. v. Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, et al.

93A02-0905-EX-490
Agency action. On rehearing, reverses the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s decision that BP Products was not a public utility with respect to the furnishing by it of natural gas it purchased from the Northern Indiana Public Service Co. to Marsulex. The COA declared this issue to be moot as a result of the resolution of other issues on appeal, which was an incorrect conclusion. Remands for further proceedings and affirms original decision in all other matters.  

Donald Glorioso v. Carla Glorioso (NFP)
64A03-1012-DR-620
Domestic relation. Affirms finding Donald Glorioso in contempt of court in a dissolution matter.

Gregory D. Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1012-CR-787
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement on home detention.

Vincent B. Hunter, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1012-CR-788
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony animal cruelty.

Indiana Tax Court had 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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT