Opinions May 31, 2013

May 31, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Brian Scott Hartman v. State of Indiana 
Criminal. Reversed and remanded a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress Hartman’s confession. Found Hartman’s previous invocation of his Miranda rights was still in place when detectives questioned him days later because his earlier request for counsel was unproductive which likely increased the coercive pressure.  

Court of Appeals
Linda Huffman, Individually and as Personal Rep. of the Estate of Jerry Huffman, Deceased v. Dexter Axle Company & Evans Equipment Co.
Civil tort/wrongful death/estate. Reverses and remands trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Dexter Axle, holding that Jerry Huffman, a contracted truck driver who died after unsecured axles he was to deliver fell off a flatbed truck, was owed a duty of care by Dexter, which was closed for business at the time the accident happened.  

Christie Wilson v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms court order finding Wilson in contempt, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion by so ruling after she pleaded the Fifth when asked about a defendant under a grant of immunity.

Kevin Speer v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. The court found no Fourth Amendment violations in a vehicle search and a search warrant that produced evidence leading to multiple drug convictions, but remanded to the court to vacate one of six convictions – Class D felony possession of two or more precursors used to manufacture methamphetamine – because evidence presented to obtain those convictions subjected Speer to double jeopardy.

Gary W. Moody v. Beverly Martin, Director of the Johnson Co. Public Library Dist.; The Board of Trustees of the Johnson Co. Public Library Dist.; Brian J. Deppe, et al. (NFP)

Civil plenary. Affirms trial court denial of Moody’s motion to correct errors and partial dismissal of lawsuit and remands to the trial court for a determination of the library’s reasonable expenses.

David Mark Frentz v. State of Indiana (NFP)  
Criminal. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

LaWanda White v. State of Indiana (NFP) 
Criminal. Reverses and remands to the trial court a restitution order that White pay $875.82 for expenses incurred in treating an arresting officer after her arrest for Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The court failed to adequately inquire into her ability to pay restitution, the court held.

Penni Williams v. John Mark Williams (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms the post-dissolution court’s order denying Penni Williams’ cross-petition requesting the court to order the payment of college expenses.

Daniel Rodgers-Conwell, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation for Rodgers-Conwell’s failure to maintain good behavior.

Rhonda Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

McLynnerd Bond, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms on interlocutory appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress a murder confession.

Charles R. Chulchian v. Rivoli Center for the Performing Arts, Inc., and Indianapolis Eastside Revitalization Corp. (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court denial of motions to set aside judgment and rescind an agreed entry.

Jimmy Dale Edwards v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Joshua Shay Morris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: C.T. & N.T.; and J.T. and B.T. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights to C.T., B.T. and N.T.

Donte Carter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 72-year sentence for murder and Class C felony attempted robbery.

Brandon M. Ebeyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony attempted burglary and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
Thomas M. Slaats v. Sally E. Slaats (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms orders regarding father Thomas Slaats’ obligation to reimburse mother Sally Slaats for agreed extracurricular fees.

Dominick Irby v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony criminal recklessness.

Jason Davison v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting.

Alvino Pizano v. Gregory F. Zoeller, et al. (NFP)
Miscellaneous. Reverse and remands the state’s motion for summary disposition of Pizano’s petition for habeus corpus relief, holding a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Pizano met his burden to show he earned a bachelor’s degree during his incarceration.

The Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?