ILNews

Opinions March 26, 2012

March 26, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Lavern Ceaser v. State of Indiana
49A02-1106-CR-580
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of Ceaser’s motion to dismiss, holding that her prior conviction for battering the same child in the same manner similar to the underlying incident was admissible under the intent and lack of accident or mistake exceptions to Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b). Further holds evidence at trial was sufficient to rebut her claim of parental privilege.

Adrien Newson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-254
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony dealing in cocaine. Reverses charges for Class C felony possession of cocaine and firearm conviction and remands to the trial court to vacate those convictions, holding they are lesser offenses included in the Class A felony charge.

Lawrence Roper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A02-1108-CR-808
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two counts of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax court had issued no opinions at 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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT