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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT