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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT