ILNews

Opinions June 1, 2011

June 1, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Jeffery Sloan v. State of Indiana
18S04-1009-CR-502
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class A felony and Class C felony child molesting. Holds once concealment has been established, statutes of limitations for criminal offenses are tolled under Indiana Code 35-41-4-2(h) until a prosecuting authority becomes aware or should have become aware of sufficient evidence to charge the defendant. Also holds that under the facts of this case, there was no double jeopardy violation because each challenged offense was established by separate and distinct facts. Justices Sullivan and Rucker dissent.
 
Indiana Court of Appeals
Eddie Vance, Jr. v. State of Indiana
18A04-1011-CR-701
Criminal. Affirms decision to recommit Vance to the Department of Correction because he was released for parole prematurely. The trial court had personal jurisdiction over him and acted within a reasonable time when it reordered him back to the DOC.

Jonathan Wirth v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
22A01-1009-CT-440
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of American Family Mutual Insurance, in which the court found American Family is entitled to repayment of its medical lien pursuant to its insurance contract with Wirth. Wirth negotiated his settlement with the tortfeasor, which was completely satisfied as evidenced by the executed Release of All Claims form. In absence of any evidence that the settlement was reasonable and American Family’s lien should be reduced, American Family is entitled to complete repayment of its medical lien.

Antione A. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-CR-1162
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony battery and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Joseph K. Todd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A03-1011-CR-566
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony failure to appear.

Julius Cabell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1010-CR-548
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress marijuana and statements made to police.

William Soper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1009-CR-611
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for jail time credit.

I
nvoluntary Commitment of A.K. (NFP)
18A02-1011-MH-1199
Mental health. Affirms order for A.K.’s regular involuntary commitment.

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. 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