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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT