ILNews

Opinions May 2, 2013

May 2, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Gerald P. VanPatten v. State of Indiana
02S03-1205-CR-251
Criminal. Vacates two convictions of child molesting, one as a Class A felony and one as a Class C felony, because a nurse’s testimony about statements made by the alleged six-year-old victim, who later recanted, should not have been admitted as substantive evidence. Affirms trial court was within its discretion to deny VanPatten’s attorneys’ motions to withdraw. Justice Massa concurs in result with a separate opinion in which Justice Rush joins. Remands for a new trial on the two counts.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dekuita Steen v. State of Indiana
49A02-1211-CR-877
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft. The trial court properly admitted a loss-prevention officer’s testimony concerning security tags and store labels into evidence, and the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.

Johann Schmidt v. State of Indiana
34A02-1207-CR-570
Criminal. Affirms denial of Schmidt’s motion to dismiss two counts of Class C felony theft filed in Howard County. The record shows the Howard County prosecutor properly filed charges against Schmidt as to the offenses committed in that county and charges out of Miami County that Schmidt was previously prosecuted on did not relate to the Howard County offenses. Remands for further proceedings.

Jason Tye Myers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1209-PC-481
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Dywan Masterson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1208-PC-368
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Frank T. Grannan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1209-CR-696
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanors operating while intoxicated, operating with an alcohol concentration equivalent of 0.08 but less than 0.15, and operating with a controlled substance or its metabolite in the body.

The Indiana 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. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

  2. I was incarcerated at that time for driving while suspended I have no felonies...i was placed on P block I remember several girls and myself asking about voting that day..and wasn't given a answer or means of voting..we were told after the election who won that was it.

  3. The number one way to reduce suffering would be to ban the breeding of fighting dogs. Fighting dogs maim and kill victim dogs Fighting dogs are the most essential piece of dog fighting Dog fighting will continue as long as fighting dogs are struggling to reach each other and maul another fih.longaphernalia

  4. Oh, and you fail to mention that you deprived the father of far FAR more time than he ever did you, even requiring officers to escort the children back into his care. Please, can you see that you had a huge part in "starting the war?" Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

  5. Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

ADVERTISEMENT