ILNews

Opinions July 6, 2010

July 6, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Today’s opinions

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Derrick Bush v. State of Indiana
49A02-0907-CR-682
Criminal. On rehearing, reaffirms its ruling reversing Bush’s conviction of carrying a handgun without a license. Court of Appeals originally reversed the conviction after it held a canine sniff and resulting warrantless search of Bush’s automobile violated the Fourth Amendment because the state did not meet its burden of showing the traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged or there was independent reasonable suspicion to justify the canine sniff.

George H. Culbertson v. State of Indiana
63A01-1002-CR-68
Criminal. Affirms Culbertson’s conviction following a bench trial for Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child. The total amount of support arrearage due was $37,400. Following a sentencing hearing on Dec. 3, 2009, the trial court sentenced Culbertson to eight years, with two years suspended to probation.

Terry Huddleston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A04-0912-CR-705
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver following guilty plea.

Sylvario Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1003-CR-158
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Remands for clarification of sentence or a new sentencing determination.

L.M., et al., Alleged to be Children in Need of Services; N.D. v. Marion County Dept. of Child Services and Child Advocates Inc. (NFP)
49A04-0911-JV-644
Juvenile. Reverses juvenile court’s adjudication of children, Le.M., L.M. Jr., and J.D., as children in need of services.
 
Roger L. Storey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A05-1001-CR-40
Criminal. Affirms six-year executed sentence following a guilty plea to Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child.
 
Bryan Claywell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1214
Criminal. Reverses conviction following bench trial for Class A felony child molesting.
 
Vidal Clayton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
21A01-1001-CR-9
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order that the sentence imposed following guilty plea to Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder be served consecutively to a sentence imposed following an unrelated conviction.
 
Frank Byers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0910-CR-966
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony burglary, Class B felony robbery, and Class C felony criminal confinement.
 
Benjamin L. Underwood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-0912-CR-707
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery.
 
H & L Motors, LLC v. Millennium Auto Group Inc. (NFP)
43A03-1002-PL-105
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order dismissing H&L Motors’ complaint against Millennium Auto Group Inc.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before 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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT