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

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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT