ILNews

Opinions Nov. 21, 2012

November 21, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. William Hagler
11-2984
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge William C. Lee.
Criminal. Affirms conviction of attempted bank robbery. Hagler argued that the government waited too long to indict him, that the evidence was insufficient to convict him, and that new DNA testing entitles him to a new trial.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Tyler A. White v. State of Indiana
90A04-1111-CR-621
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction. The probative value of the 804(b)(5) evidence outweighed the danger of the unfair prejudice to White. The Legislature’s intent in the feticide enhancement statute is clear that the state need not prove a defendant’s mens rea when seeking a sentence enhancement for feticide.

Robert D. Davis v. State of Indiana
11A01-1204-CR-251
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence. The trial court followed the appellate court’s order on remand as far as resentencing, and Davis did not develop a cogent argument with respect to how a 1994 amendment regarding sentencing would have affected his sentence.

Romero Leslie v. State of Indiana
49A04-1203-CR-135
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine. Leslie hasn’t shown that the trial court committed fundamental error when it denied his request to dismiss a juror, nor that the court abused its discretion when it dismissed another juror after she stated she couldn’t render a decision based on the evidence.

Thomas H. Andrews v. State of Indiana
29A02-1112-MI-1166
Miscellaneous. Reverses and remands with instructions to grant Andrew’s petition to be removed from the sex offender registry. Requiring him to register violates the Indiana Constitution prohibitions on ex post facto laws, and Indiana state courts do not have the authority to consider whether federal statutory penalties attach to Andrews’ conduct.

James Henley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-CR-404
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felonies attempted forgery and forgery, and Class D felony theft.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of K.S. and K.C. (Minor Children) and Y.C. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
48A04-1202-JT-52
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Lanika Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2012/november/11211205pdm.pdf
49A04-1203-CR-138
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT