ILNews

Opinions March 13, 2012

March 13, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline yesterday:

In the Matter of: Carl J. Brizzi
49S00-0910-DI-425
Disciplinary. Supreme Court issued a public reprimand for former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, finding that he violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 3.6(a) and 3.8(f) by making public statements as a prosecutor that had a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding and a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the criminal defendants. Court rules that “actual prejudice” is not required and court defines “public record” as government documents, such as probable cause affidavits.

Today’s opinions:

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had filed no opinions by IL deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Shannon McComas v. Edward Brickley
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
11-2138
Civil. Reverses District Court’s denial of Brickley’s motion for summary judgment. McComas filed suit against Brickley for false arrest after the charges against McComas were dropped.
But Brickley claimed that he had probable cause to arrest McComas and qualified immunity in his role as a police officer. The 7th Circuit agreed and held the District Court erred in its determination of qualified immunity. It remanded with instructions consistent with its opinion.

Julie A. Smith v. Lafayette Bank & Trust Company
United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Jon E. DeGuilio.
10-3556
Civil. Affirms grant of summary judgment against Smith in her claim that Lafayette Bank & Trust retaliated against her for filing an age discrimination complaint under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, holding that Smith was unable to show that the bank administrators who terminated her were ever aware that she filed a charge of discrimination, and that she filed that charge five months after she was terminated.

Indiana Court of Appeals
The Guardianship of Harold G. Gardner, Scott A. Gardner, Guardian v. Carl Prochno
50A03-1108-PL-385
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of Prochno, holding that per Indiana Code 32-31-1, the Gardners did not provide in a timely manner a notice to terminate tenancy of farm land.

Kenneth Akers v. State of Indiana
49A05-1106-CR-313
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for battery, resisting law enforcement and possession of paraphernalia, all Class A misdemeanors. Akers raised one question for review: Whether Indiana Code 35-50-1-2 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution or Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution because the statute limits the imposition of consecutive sentences when someone is convicted of at least one felony, but no such statute exists limiting the imposition of consecutive sentences for those convicted of only misdemeanors. But the COA held that Akers’ offenses were separate and distinct, and therefore IC 35-50-1-2 does not apply.

Alfred Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A04-1109-CR-500
Criminal. Affirms court’s revocation of probation and order that Taylor serve 1,825 days of his previously suspended sentence.

Ralph Winfrey v. NLMP, Inc. and Witham Health Services (NFP)

06A01-1103-PL-132
Civil plenary. Reverses grant of summary judgment in favor of NLMP and Witham Health Services, holding that the court erred in determining Winfrey’s claims were based on speculation. Remands for further proceedings.

Matthew G. Fearnow v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1107-CR-341
Criminal. Vacates Fearnow’s conviction of Class B misdemeanor harassment and remands for new trial, holding that the trial court did not adequately advise him of the risks of proceeding pro se. Affirms trial court’s grant of the state’s second motion to amend charging information, holding the location where harassing phone messages were received did not affect Fearnow’s rights.

Matthew Jordan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A04-1108-CR-484
Criminal. Affirms sentence for four counts of Class C felony forgery.

Rondell Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1101-CR-612
Criminal. Affirms Walker’s termination from the Howard County Drug Court program and the sentence imposed on his underlying conviction of Class B felony possession of cocaine.

Douglas R. Denmure, Personal Rep. of the Estate of Eugene D. Trester, Deceased v. Michael S. Gridley, Personal Rep. of the Estate of Alice F. Grindley, Deceased (NFP)
49A02-1109-ES-905
Estate supervised. Reverses trial court’s order approving the personal representative’s accounting, supplemental accounting, petition for order approving distribution, and closing the estate, holding Denmure has established prima facie error. Remands for further proceedings, including a consideration of Denmure’s request for additional attorney fees pursuant to the terms of the mediated settlement agreement.

Joshua Love v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-CR-629
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony escape and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Elwin Hart v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1107-CR-583
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder.

Aaron Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-784
Criminal. Reverses Lee’s convictions of Class B felony criminal confinement and Class C felony intimidation, holding  the court’s instructions did not adequately instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence. Remands for new trial.

T.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-JV-832
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing two counts of battery that would be Class A misdemeanors if committed by an adult.

Michael Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1108-CR-378
Criminal. Affirms 18-year sentence with three years suspended for Class B felony neglect of a dependent, holding that in light of Jones’ previous conviction of neglect, the sentence was not inappropriate.
 

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