Opinions May 6, 2011

May 6, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Indiana Supreme Court
Joshua Konopasek v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reaffirms the Fletcher limitation on the judicial-temperance presumption. Summarily affirms the Indiana Court of Appeals decision finding sufficient evidence to support Konopasek’s conviction and to disprove his self-defense claim. Concludes the trial court properly admitted the evidence in question and affirms his conviction of and sentence for Class C felony battery causing serious bodily injury.  

Today’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jermel C. Thomas
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division,
Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Criminal. Dismisses appeal, stating the District Court did not err in enforcing a plea agreement wherein Jermel Thomas had waived his right to appeal his sentence and conviction.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Witt, Hydrotech Corp. and Mark Shere v. Jay Petroleum, Inc. and Jack R. James
Civil. Reverses trial court’s award of attorney fees to Jay Petroleum and Jack James, ruling the trial court erred when it determined the appellants were in contempt of court.  

Gayle D. Edelen v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies of perjury and official misconduct against Gayle D. Edelen, a caseworker for the Indiana Department of Child Services. States that the transcript of the closed juvenile procedure hearing in which Edelen perjured herself was admissible in Edelen’s perjury trial.

R.L. Turner Corporation v. Town of Brownsburg
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s order awarding attorney fees to the Town of Brownsburg, ruling that R.L. Turner Corporation’s lawsuit was frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless.

Dwayne Eversley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of invasion of privacy, as both a Class D felony and a Class A misdemeanor, and resisting law enforcement, as both a Class D felony and a Class A misdemeanor.

A.M. v. Review Board (NFP)
Civil. Affirms Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board’s denial of unemployment compensation benefits.

Steven Gray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms 50-year sentence for Class A felony child molesting. Reverses convictions of Class B felonies rape and incest on double jeopardy grounds, and remands with instructions to vacate.

Tiffany L. Otten v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony neglect of a dependant.

Willie J. Herman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.

Jerry Kohlhouse v. Black's Excavation (NFP)
Small claim. Affirms trial court’s judgment for Black’s Excavation and its dismissal of Jerry Kohlhouse’s counter-claim.

A.F. & R.B. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms trial court’s adjudication of children as children in need of services.

Ronald Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class C felony child molesting and one count Class D felony child solicitation.

Jermarcus L. Grandberry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony burglary.

Jamie L. Vida v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of verified petition for removal from the Indiana Sex Offender Registry. Remands with instructions to grant petition.

Tyler Sturdivant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony battery and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Marlon D. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s finding that Taylor violated his community corrections placement and probation.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.