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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT