Opinions June 13, 2012

June 13, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Michael W. Baker v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary, finding the evidence suggesting that Baker opened cupboards and drawers in the kitchen is enough to support a reasonable inference that the defendant entered the church with intent to commit theft inside.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

United States of America v. Cristofer Tichenor
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Criminal. Affirms 300-month sentence following guilty plea to armed robbery and discharging a firearm in connection with robbing a bank. Rejects Tichenor’s argument that the career offender sentencing guideline is unconstitutionally vague, finding that the guidelines are not susceptible to vagueness challenges and the U.S. Sentencing Commission did not exceed its authority by promulgating the “crime of violence” definition.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

In Re the Matter of: B.N. and H.C., Children in Need of Services; M.C. v. Marion Co. Dept. of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc.
Juvenile. Reverses determination that children are in need of services. There is insufficient evidence to support the determination that the children’s physical or mental conditions were seriously impaired or endangered as a result of the inability, refusal or neglect of the parent to supply the children with food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education or supervision.

Anthony D. Gorman v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. There is sufficient evidence to support his convictions.

Dennis Jack Horner v. Marcia (Horner) Carter
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Horner’s request to modify the terms of a mediated settlement agreement. Alternative Dispute Resolution Rule 2.11 and Indiana Evidence Rule 408 allow the introduction of mediation communications to establish traditional contract defenses, so the trial court erred in excluding the evidence of mediation communications to establish that a mistake occurred in drafting the agreement.  But his testimony about the mediation communications falls short of establishing any mistake that might entitle him to relief, so this was a harmless error. The trial court properly determined that the agreement in this case provided for a property settlement that survived Carter’s remarriage.

Chad Stewart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony child molesting.

Auto Liquidation Center, Inc. v. McKesha Bates (NFP)
Small claim. Affirms judgment in favor of Bates on her breach of contract and criminal conversion claims. Remands for calculation of appellate attorney fees owed to Bates.

Carl D. Jackson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.

Anthony Michael Beck and Sandra Beck, natural parents and next friends of Jacob Leslie Beck, minor v. Scott Memorial Hospital and Larry Hunefeld, M.D. (NFP)
Civil collection. Affirms grant of a motion in limine filed by Scott Memorial Hospital.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.