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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  2. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  3. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  4. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  5. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

ADVERTISEMENT