ILNews

Opinions May 30, 2013

May 30, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Daniel L. Delaney
12-2849
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. Delaney’s argument that no reasonable juror could have failed to find that he acted in the heat of passion when he killed his cellmate fails because there was considerable evidence of forethought, much of it emanating from the defendant’s own statements. Judge Bauer concurs.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Parent-Child Rel. of: B.H. & B.H., and T.H. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services
52A02-1210-JT-849
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights. Holds the social worker who testified about a parenting assessment called Child Abuse Potential Inventory was able to testify as an expert witness in this case based on Ind. Evidence Rule 702. Concludes that CAPI is based on reliable principles and therefore the trial court did not err by allowing testimony about mother T.H.’s CAPI results.

Jeffrey Embrey v. State of Indiana
82A01-1211-CR-494
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony neglect of a dependent. The trial court acted within its discretion in admitting certain evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and the evidence is sufficient to sustain Embrey’s conviction.

Dean Eric Blanck v. State of Indiana
47A01-1209-CR-424
Criminal. Affirms denial of petitions for permission to file a belated notice of appeal and for appointment of appellate counsel. Because Blanck is ineligible to bring a belated appeal under Post-Conviction Rule 2, the trial court properly denied his petition to appoint counsel for that purpose.

Joshua Lindsey v. Adam Neher
08A04-1211-MI-575
Miscellaneous. Reverses denial of Lindsey’s motion to rescind a tax deed issued to Neher. The tax deed at issue was invalid and the judgment void as a matter of law, so Lindsey is entitled to be allowed to tender his redemption payment. Remands for an order that the Carroll County auditor accept redemption funds from Lindsey.

United Farm Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Indiana Insurance Co. and Royal Crown Bottling Corp. (NFP)
49A02-1211-PL-914
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Indiana Insurance Co. and Royal Crown Bottling Corp. on whose auto insurance should cover damage from an accident a spouse was involved in with a company car.

Michael Toney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1209-CR-471
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, but reverses sentence because the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the habitual offender enhancement be served consecutive to the two counts. Remands for resentencing.

Aaron Wiegand v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1210-CR-502
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition to withdraw guilty pleas for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as a Class B felony and criminal recklessness as a Class C felony.

Kristi Gates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1210-CR-484
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained upon the execution of two search warrants.

Brian T. Martin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1210-CR-446
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating while intoxicated, which was the underlying conviction for Martin’s Class D felony OWI conviction.

In Re: The Marriage of Kenneth G. Haynie, Jr. v. Teresa H. Haynie (NFP)
82A01-1206-DR-265
Domestic relation. Affirms court’s decision to set aside to wife assets that she had inherited. Reverses in part dissolution decree because it and an order on motion to correct error do not correspond with a substantially equal division of the remaining assets. The husband is entitled to an order for the transfer of assets actually allocated to him by the dissolution court in its division of marital assets.

James King v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-CR-858
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for permission to file a belated notice of appeal.

Michael and Brenda Gralia v. Butler Garden Center (NFP)
67A01-1301-CT-26
Civil tort. Reverses trial court order granting Butler’s motion to dismiss a breach of contract claim and remands for further proceedings.

Russell Grady v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1210-CR-854
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no 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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT