ILNews

Opinions July 29, 2014

July 29, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ryan E. Bean v. State of Indiana
91A02-1310-CR-912
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A felony child molesting. Finds Bean was denied a fair trial because of fundamental error. Testimony from the victim’s mother and an Indiana Department of Child Services investigator impermissibly vouched for the victim’s credibility and invaded the province of the jury to determine the validity of the witness’s statements. The prosecutor reinforced this vouching testimony in his closing arguments. Also, the prosecutor committed misconduct when he asked the county sheriff about the process for investigating child molesting allegations in general. The sheriff’s testimony left the jurors wondering what Bean told police and, therefore, penalized the defendant for invoking his right to counsel.

Richard Dodd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1312-CR-475
Criminal. Affirms resentencing order of 55 years in prison for conviction of Class A felony attempted murder and class C felony burglary.

Martin's Markets, Inc., Dale Martin and Alisa Martin v. Coonie's Corner, LLC (NFP)
72A05-1401-MF-41
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms trial court denial of Martin’s Markets’ motion to deem a judgment against them in favor of Coonie’s Corner discharged.

Charles Gaylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1312-CR-520
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed by the trial court after Gaylor admitted violating terms of probation.

Jaime Miguel Cordero v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1401-CR-28
Criminal. Affirms 45-year aggregate sentence and convictions of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct and Class B felony burglary.

In Re: The Petition of John Oberleas for Issuance of Tax Deed, Tax Sale Certificates #801063, 801066, 801067, 801068, Parcel No. 006-00168-00; 006-01232-00; 006-01233-00; 006-01234-00; et al (NFP)
80A05-1402-MI-70
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s denial of Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC’s motion to set aside an order directing issuance of tax deeds and the tax sale of a property to which it had obtained an interest.

William Hodapp, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
07A01-1307-CR-342
Criminal. On rehearing, reaffirms Hodapp’s conviction of Class B felony incest.

Mark Keaton v. Christine L. Zook (NFP)
53A01-1401-PL-38
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of summary judgment on favor of Christine Zook on Mark Keaton’s malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims.

Grover E. Lowe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A04-1311-CR-572
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony possession of methamphetamine.

John Hollins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1308-PC-719
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of relief from Hollins’ 110-year aggregate sentence for convictions of three counts of Class A felony rape, one count of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, one count of Class B felony criminal confinement and his adjudication as a habitual offender.

Joshua W. Doughty v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1311-CR-483
Criminal. Affirms 40-year executed sentence for conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana 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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT