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.














the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!