ILNews

Opinions June 22, 2012

June 22, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Roy Lee Ward v. State of Indiana
74S00-0907-PD-320
Death penalty. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of Ward’s petition for relief from his death sentence. Ward raised several issues in his petition for relief, including ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that the state’s death penalty statute violates the Eighth Amendment.  

Friday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Rafael Bocanegra v. State of Indiana
20A03-1108-CR-361
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony forgery. Holds that potential injury remains a sufficient basis for a finding of criminal intent in a forgery prosecution. Remands for vacation of his identity deception conviction. Senior Judge Sullivan dissents.

German American Financial Advisors & Trust Co. d/b/a German American Investment Svcs., PrimeVest Financial Svcs., Inc., and Jeffery W. Tooley v. Dennis M. Reed
19A01-1110-PL-428
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of German American Financial Advisors & Trust Co. and other appellants’ second motion to compel arbitration of Reed’s claims against them. Remands with instructions. Appellants have sustained their burden to show the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement and that the disputed matter is the type of claim that is intended to be arbitrated under the agreement. Holds Reed must arbitrate his claims against GAFA under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Judge Barnes concurs in part and dissents in part.

Karla P. Estrada v. State of Indiana
20A03-1110-CR-474
Criminal. Affirms convictions and 24-year sentence for two counts of Class B felony armed robbery and one count of Class C felony conspiracy to commit robbery. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Estrada’s motion to dismiss or by admitting her statement to police into evidence. Her conspiracy conviction does not violate double jeopardy prohibition and her sentence is appropriate.

William T. Carter, derivatively on behalf of CNO Financial Group, Inc. v. R. Glenn Hilliard, et al.
49A02-1106-PL-582
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of CNO’s motion to dismiss Carter’s complaint for failure to make pre-suit demand on the board of directors. Carter has not alleged particularized facts to show that the director defendants face a substantial likelihood of liability for the conduct described in the amended complaint, nor has he alleged particularized facts to show that the director defendants breached their duties of good faith and loyalty. Therefore, Carter has not shown under Delaware law that pre-suit demand on the board would have been futile.

In Re: Prosecutor's Subpoena Regarding S.H. and S.C.; S.H. v. State of Indiana
73A01-1109-CR-468
Criminal. Affirms order granting the state’s petition to compel testimony by parents S.H. and S.C. by providing use immunity. Agrees with the state that because a prosecutor can compel testimony in grand jury proceedings by granting use immunity, the prosecutor has the same authority when conducting a pre-charge investigation without a grand jury.

Carl E. Thomas, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A05-1108-CR-423
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony rape.

Kevin L. Govan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1111-CR-663
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.
 

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT