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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT