ILNews

Opinions Nov. 13, 2013

November 13, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Tuesday
.
Jamar Washington v. State of Indiana
49S02-1212-CR-669
Criminal. Affirms trial court jury instruction regarding defense of another as the correct statement of law, holding that Washington’s tendered instruction that the court declined to use was not required. Remands for correction of the sentencing abstract to reflect that Washington was convicted of resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor rather than as a Class D felony.  

Billy Russell v. State of Indiana
49S04-1311-CR-741
Criminal. Affirms convictions for murder and Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Finds the trial court did not err in refusing to give Russell’s tendered jury instruction assessing his claim of self-defense. Concludes that partially bifurcating the trial did not prejudice Russell.

Today's opinions
Indiana Supreme Court

Julie Kitchell v. Ted Franklin, as the Mayor of the City of Logansport, and the Common Council of the City of Logansport
09S00-1307-PL-476
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court dismissal of a suit challenging the city’s planned public-private partnership to convert a coal-fired power plant to generate electricity by burning refuse. Justices held that the Indiana Public-Private Agreements statute does not require a local legislative body to adopt an enabling statute before it may issue requests for proposals or begin contract negotiations.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Robert Kuntz, Kunodu, Inc., and B-K Interests, LLC v. EVI, LLC
02A03-1301-PL-14
Civil plenary. Affirms order granting preliminary injunction based on trial court’s finding that Kuntz had violated the terms of his noncompete agreement. Reverses and remands the trial court extending the duration of the noncompete and awarding attorney fees to EVI. The COA points out a preliminary injunction is not a final judgment and is meant only to preserve the status quo as it existed prior to the dispute.

David Williams v. State of Indiana
67A01-1302-CR-87
Criminal. Affirms conviction and aggregate 99-year sentence for eight counts of Class A felony child molestation and once count of Class B felony incest. Finds Williams’ confession to police was voluntary and not coerced. Ruled the convictions for incest and child molesting do not constitute double jeopardy. Holds even though the trial court may have abused its discretion in considering Williams’ IRAS score as an aggravating factor, the 99-year sentence is not inappropriate.

Charles Cole v. State of Indiana
49A02-1308-CR-680
Criminal. Reverses an increase of bond from $2,500 surety to $10,000 surety on a Class D felony charge of possession of methamphetamine, holding that the increase was an abuse of discretion. No new evidence supported the increase that was twice as high as the maximum under local court rules, and the requirements for increasing bail under Ind. Code 35-33-8-5 were not satisfied.

State of Indiana v. Molly Gray
62A01-1303-CR-108
Criminal. Affirms on interlocutory appeal the trial court’s suppression of drug evidence collected after a drug-sniffing police dog indicated the presence of narcotics in a van pulled over in a traffic stop. The free-air sniff conducted by the canine was not incidental to the traffic stop and the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to justify increasing the duration of the stop.

Timothy W. Mackall, and Stephanie K. Mackall v. Cathedral Trustees, Inc., d/b/a Cathedral High School (NFP)
49A02-1304-CC-290
Civil collections. Affirms trial court award of $47,510 in attorney fees in favor of Cathedral.

In the Matter of E.B. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services and R.K. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
84A01-1303-JC-95
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of E.B. as a child in need of services.

Billy Bulu Gercilus v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1303-CR-246
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class D felony battery resulting in bodily injury and one count of Class A misdemeanor interfering with the reporting of a crime.

Tammy Price v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and WC Fern Exposition Services(NFP)
93A02-1304-EX-369
Agency action. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.
 
Zigfried Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1303-CR-124
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine.

Shaun A. Fry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
50A03-1305-CR-170
Criminal. Affirms in part and reverses in part convictions after a bench trial of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle without receiving a license. Vacates the felony conviction and remands for new trial because there is no evidence in the record that Fry knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial.  
 
Brenda Painter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1304-CR-346
Criminal. Affirms 22-year aggregate sentence for conviction of two counts of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.


Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline .
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT