ILNews

Opinions March 8, 2012

March 8, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S.A v. Marlon K. Spears
No. 10-3338
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Chief Judge Philip P. Simon.
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence, finding that enough probable cause existed to justify a search warrant that led to a man’s convictions on drug charges.

Indiana Supreme Court
Keith Hoglund v. State of Indiana
No. 90S02-1105-CR-294
Criminal. Affirms trial court judgment that found sufficient evidence to support two Class A felony child molesting convictions and a 50-year sentence. Holds that the Indiana Rules of Evidence do not allow for “vouching testimony” in child sex abuse cases and that past caselaw does not create an exception.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of K.E., and T.E. and J.E., T.E. and J.E. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services
No. 20A05-1104-JT-206
Parental termination. Reverses and remands parental termination case, finding that trial court didn’t comply with Indiana Code 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(A) before involuntary terminating the parental rights.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2371, Official Bargaining Agent, et al. v. Merchandising Equipment Group, Div. of MEG Manufacturing Corp., et al.
33A05-1107-CP-345
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s decision to grant defendant’s Trial Rule 41(E) motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute after 18 years, finding the court didn’t abuse its discretion.

Pamela J. Hensley v. State of Indiana
63A01-1105-CR-195
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s judgment denying motion to suppress evidence seized during a home search, finding that the probation search was not justified under the Fourth Amendment because it wasn’t a valid probation search but more resembled an investigatory search.

Gladys E. Curry and Thomas Curry v. D.A.L.L. Anointed, Inc.
45A04-1106-CT-290
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s judgment dismissing complaint for injuries and loss of consortium against D.A.L.L. Anointed, finding the lower court did not err in holding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act.

Guardianship of M.A.M.: D.L.M. v. J.G. (NFP)
71A03-1108-GU-365
Guardianship. Reverses trial court’s order denying father’s petition to terminate maternal grandfather’s guardianship, finding prima facie error because of an existing power of attorney the father had in place while he was deployed.

Donnell Caldwell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1108-CR-405
Criminal. Affirms six-year sentence imposed by trial court following a Class C felony criminal recklessness conviction, finding the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in sentencing him and the sentence is not inappropriate.
    
Lynnette A. Wire v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A05-1106-CR-410
Criminal. Affirms in part and reverses in part a drunken driving case, finding the evidence is sufficient to sustain a Class C infraction for driving left of center and a Class C misdemeanor conviction of operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content between 0.08 and 0.15. Remands to vacate conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating while intoxicated.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of R.H. and D.H., D.H. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs. and Lake County CASA (NFP)
45A03-1107-JT-339
Parental termination. Affirms trial court’s involuntary termination of mother’s parental rights, finding evidence supported the juvenile court’s judgment.

Jeffery Haugh v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1106-CR-276
Criminal. Affirms denial of a motion to withdraw Haugh’s guilty plea in a case involving his conviction of Class D felony failure to notify authorities and moving a body from the scene. Finds the trial court didn’t err and that the sentence is appropriate.

William Estell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1109-CR-423
Criminal. Affirms man’s three-year sentence following a conviction of Class D felony escape, finding trial court properly denied motion for a continuance before the sentencing.

Russell A. Prosser, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
59A01-1107-CR-346
Criminal. Reverses trial court on permitting state to elicit testimony from child-molesting victim’s case manager substantiating the molestation claim. Remands for a new trial.

Richard J. Charlton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1108-CR-397
Criminal. Affirms Class B felony rape conviction, finding evidence was sufficient and trial court didn’t abuse its discretion by limiting evidence of sexual history between Richard Charlton and victim.
 
David S. Stover v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1109-CR-398
Criminal. Affirms Class A misdemeanor conviction of criminal conversation and one-year sentence suspended to probation, finding evidence was sufficient.

James R. Lockhart, Jr. v. Lisa (Lockhart) Guyer (NFP)
29A02-1103-DR-208
Domestic relation. On petition for rehearing, appellate court revises its Dec. 11, 2011, opinion in same case and removes the citation to Indiana Code 34-52-1-1(b) and instead inserts citation to Indiana Code 31-15-10-1. Affirms previous decision in all other regards.

The Indiana Tax Court had 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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT