ILNews

Opinions March 28, 2013

March 28, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
In Re: Prosecutor's Subpoena Regarding S.H. and S.C.; S.H. v. State of Indiana
73S01-1209-CR-563
Criminal. Holds that in a situation where, as here, no charges have been filed and no grand jury has been convened, a prosecutor may subpoena witnesses pursuant to Indiana Code § 33-39-1-4. If those witnesses invoke their constitutional right against self-incrimination, however, the prosecutor cannot petition the court to grant them use immunity and compel them to testify without first filing charges or convening a grand jury. Reverses court’s denial of parents S.H.’s and S.C.’s motion to correct error and remands for further proceedings.

Thursday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of G.P., and J.A. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services

49A02-1208-JT-643
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights. Mother J.A.’s due process rights were not violated, and there was sufficient evidence to support the termination.

Howard Osborne and Kimberly Easterday v. Tina R. Berger and Carla Hill, co-personal representatives of the Estate of Elbert H. Osborne, deceased (NFP)
85A04-1209-ES-482
Estate. Affirms order which approved the co-personal representatives’ amended petition for a final account in the estate.

Jami M. Martin v. State of Indiana (NFP)

03A01-1209-CR-402
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felonies possession of cocaine and maintaining a common nuisance.

Jamarcus Cain v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A03-1207-CR-335
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

Daymon Holbert v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1209-PC-455
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

J.W. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and DeGood Dimensional Concepts, Inc. (NFP)

93A02-1205-EX-432
Agency action. Affirms denial of claim for unemployment benefits.

William Baxter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1205-PC-248
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Steven Reynolds v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1208-CR-423
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

Tyrone Bell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A05-1207-CR-393
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and the habitual offender enhancement.

William J. Caudill v. State of Indiana (NFP)

20A03-1206-CR-274
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery resulting in bodily injury.

Ricky Outlaw v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, Keith Butts, Rick Talley, Bruce Lemon, and Alan Finnan (NFP)

48A02-1210-CT-889
Civil tort. Affirms dismissal of negligence complaint Outlaw filed against the Indiana Department of Correction, Commissioner Bruce Lemmon, Superintendent Alan Finnan, and Ricky Talley, in their individual and official capacities.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of D.K. (Minor Child) and B.K. (Mother) and D.B.K. (Father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1208-JT-367
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT