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

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT