ILNews

Opinions June 12, 2014

June 12, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Gabriel McQuay v. State of Indiana
49A02-1311-CR-954
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony criminal confinement and Class A misdemeanor battery. Under an objective analysis, the circumstances of the encounter as well as the statements and actions of R.S. and Officer Travis Williams indicate that the primary purpose of the interrogation was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. As such, R.S.’s identification of herself and McQuay were not testimonial statements. The Confrontation Clause did not bar their admission at McQuay’s trial.

Lesley Farley Pitcavage v. Joel Michael Pitcavage
29A02-1307-DR-597
Domestic relation. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands with instructions. Concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody of the child to Joel Pitcavage; in its valuation of the mortgage debt, engagement ring, and golf clubs, or in its division of debts and award of fees relating to home repairs, custody evaluations, tax return preparation, and car insurance premiums. The trial court abused its discretion in its valuation of Leslie Pitcavage’s 401(k) account.

Billy Young v. State of Indiana
49A02-1310-CR-868
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B felony attempted aggravated battery. The charging information did not give Young sufficient notice of the crime of which he was convicted.

Bradley S. Stock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A05-1308-CR-403
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony child molesting, Class C felony vicarious sexual gratification, Class D felony performing sexual conduct in the presence of a minor and Class D felony child solicitation.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of B.P.V. & B.L.V. (Minor Children) and H.P. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
71A04-1310-JT-546
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Shelton B. Stephens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1311-CR-439
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Stephens serve the remainder of his suspended sentence.

Tony Lamar Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1311-CR-546
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Thompson serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence.

Nicholas M. Weatherford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1309-CR-766
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony theft conviction and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Darris Blake Galloway v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1310-CR-503
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Vance Gene Bridgemon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A04-1310-CR-552
Criminal. Affirms denial of Ind. Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from robbery convictions.

Franklin E. Logan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A05-1310-CR-495
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class C felony burglary.

Krasimir Pavlov v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1311-CR-443
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony battery and Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Shawkan Darden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-892
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Nita Joyce Trott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1311-CR-496
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor reckless driving.

Kevin R. Simmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1309-CR-830
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury.

In the Matter of the Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of J.C.G. (Minor Child), and L.A.M. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1312-JT-466
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Tracy L. Oaks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1312-CR-1057
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in a Schedule I, II or III controlled substance.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: G.M. (Minor Child), and R.M. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
29A05-1310-JT-509
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

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