ILNews

Opinions June 20, 2012

June 20, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Tuesday:

Indiana Supreme Court

Tina Whiting v. State of Indiana
38S05-1206-CR-345
Criminal. Affirms a murder conviction and sentence, holding the trial court did not err when it empanelled a juror after denying a joint challenge for cause. The court ruled that because the defendant had not exhausted peremptory challenges and didn’t move to strike the juror, no error was preserved for review.

Indiana Tax Court
Harsukh and Parul Bosamia v. Marion County Assessor
49T10-1108-TA-53
Tax. Dismisses the Bosamias’ appeal of the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s final determination upholding the commercial real property assessments for the 2007 and 2008 tax years. The Bosamias did not timely file the certified administrative record as required by Tax Court Rule 3(E).

Wednesday’s opinions:
Indiana Supreme Court

In the Matter of: Douglas W. Patterson
82S00-1111-DI-662
Discipline. Disbars Patterson for committing three counts of Class D felony theft of client funds and for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

John Berry v. State of Indiana
49S04-1110-CR-611
Criminal. Affirms Class A felony attempted murder conviction and the trial court’s rejection of Berry’s insanity defense because there was credible expert testimony that his behavior was caused by his voluntary abuse of alcohol.

Rondell Walker v. State of Indiana
34S02-1206-CR-346
Criminal. Grants transfer and orders Walker’s sentence revised from 20 years to 12 years, citing Abbot v. State. Walker pleaded guilty to Class B felony possession of cocaine and originally was referred to drug court, but his participation in the program was terminated and the trial court sentenced him to the maximum term of 20 years. Justice Massa voted to deny transfer.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Town of Zionsville, Indiana and Zionsville Plan Commission v. Hamilton County Airport Authority
49A05-1107-PL-374
Civil plenary. Reverses judgment in favor of the airport authority and orders judgment entered for the town of Zionsville. Rejects the airport authority’s argument that it’s not obligated to seek zoning approval from Zionsville or any other entity before carrying out its duties regarding an airport it owns in Boone County.

Jason Michael Palilonis v. State of Indiana
42A05-1104-CR-197
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony rape. Finds trial court’s admittance of evidence of alleged rape victim B.S.’s death because this was the fairest resolution for both parties as to why she was not testifying at trial. The statements B.S. made to the nurse during her sexual-assault examination are admissible under Evidence Rule 803(4) and the reasoning in Perry v. State for the description of the events of the rape. The nurse’s statements that were impermissible vouching testimony should not have been admitted at trial but it did not rise to the level of fundamental error.

Danny L. Weaver v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A01-1111-CR-582
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony child molesting.

Mickey S. Owen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1111-CR-562
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class D felony theft.

Walter James Blake v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1112-PC-1134
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Ronnie D. Inabnitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A01-1110-CR-517
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting but revises sentence from 70 years to 35 years.

Bakari Edwards v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1111-CR-1006
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony obstruction of justice and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Reverses order Edwards serve a term of imprisonment for a Class A infraction and remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Tax Court 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