ILNews

Opinions March 18, 2014

March 18, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
David S. Delagrange v. State of Indiana
49S04-1304-CR-249
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of Class C felony attempted child exploitation, finding sufficient evidence supports them. The state did not need to show Delagrange actually succeeded in capturing images of uncovered genitals, just that he took a “substantial step” toward doing so.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Donald Murdock v. State of Indiana
48A02-1306-CR-565
Criminal. Affirms finding that Murdock violated his probation terms when he committed Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement after running from a police officer who told him to stop. Well-established Indiana precedent holds that a person may not flee from a police officer who has told him to stop, even if the order is unlawful. Judge Mathias dissents.

Behavioral Health and Human Services Licensing Board, Kimble L. Richardson, George Brenner, Andrew Harner, Geneva Osawe, Rex Stockton, Carla Gaff-Clark, and The State of Indiana v. Elaine Williams
48A05-1304-PL-185
Civil plenary. Affirms the revocation of mental health counselor Elaine Williams’ license. The board afforded Williams fair proceedings and acted within its authority in imposing the sanction of revocation. Finds the trial court also impermissibly reweighed the credibility of the witnesses and substituted its judgment for that of the board when it overturned the revocation after conducting a second hearing.

In the Matter of A.G. and A.K. Children Alleged to be in Need of Services, M.K. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
82A05-1306-JC-297
Juvenile.  Affirms adjudication that A.G. and A.K. are children in need of services. The court’s findings support the remaining conclusions, which support the judgment. Rejects mother’s argument that the rule in Gash v. Kohm, 476 N.E.2d 910, 913 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) – that the privilege against self-incrimination does not prohibit the trier of fact in a civil case from drawing adverse inferences from a witness’s refusal to testify – should not apply in CHINS proceedings.

Filiberto Rivera v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1305-CR-264
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class C felony burglary, Class D felony theft, and two counts of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Edgardo Jose Guido v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1307-CR-286
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony incest.

Shawn McWhorter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1309-PC-375
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: Bry.B. and B.B. (minor children) and A.B. (Mother) and M.B. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

54A01-1310-JT-450
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Cecil Koger and Koger's, Inc. v. T&C, Inc., d/b/a I-70 Wrecker Service (NFP)
55A01-1305-CT-187
Civil tort. Affirms partial grant and partial denial of Koger’s motion for summary judgment on certain claims of T&C Inc. in its complaint for damages.

Ronnie D. Conley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1308-CR-335
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony dealing in a Schedule I, II or III controlled substance.

Harold Weir v. Riverwalk Holdings, LTD (NFP)
18A02-1310-CC-853
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment for Riverwalk Holdings in an action to collect an indebtedness arising from a credit card account assigned to Riverwalk.  

Dennis Hankins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1305-CR-234
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony attempted burglary.

Gayle Clark, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A05-1305-CR-261
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Eric Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A04-1309-CR-464
Criminal. Affirms five-year sentence for Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child.

Robert Fultz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1311-CR-437
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft and admittance to being a habitual offender.

Henry Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1308-CR-701
Criminal. Affirms order Woods pay $1,600 in restitution for damage to Bianca Cunningham’s vehicle.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: C.O. (Minor Child) and T.E. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
06A04-1307-JT-367
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Tony M. Castoreno, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A04-1306-CR-290
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony battery by means of a deadly weapon and Class A misdemeanor unlawful possession of a firearm by a domestic batterer.

Timothy R. Hartwell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A04-1304-CR-208
Criminal. Affirms finding of guilty but mentally ill of Class C felony criminal stalking.

Renee Berry, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jeffery Berry, Deceased v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., d/b/a Duke Energy (NFP)
49A02-1306-CT-483
Civil tort. Affirms judgment in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on Berry’s complaint alleging negligence.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT