ILNews

Opinions Nov. 8, 2010

November 8, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Timothy Cranston v. State of Indiana
29A02-1003-CR-374
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated with an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or greater. The admission of the Datamaster machine printed ticket stating his BAC without live testimony from the equipment technician didn’t violate Cranston’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.

Kimberly Thomas v. State of Indiana
49A02-1002-CR-105
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. Under the circumstances set forth in the record, the institution of direct contempt proceedings was the more appropriate action in response to Thomas’ statement to James Smith in the courtroom. Remands with instructions to vacate her conviction and at the trial court’s option, to resume direct contempt proceedings. Judge Bradford dissents.

Branton Homsher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A01-1003-CR-116
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for Class B felony aggravated battery and Class B felony neglect of a dependent.

A.L.C. v. J.H. (NFP)
82A01-1003-DR-149
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of mother’s petition to modify custody and order that her parenting time continue to be supervised. Remands with instructions to hear evidence regarding the parents’ respective abilities to pay the cost of mother’s supervised visitation in determining who shall pay the weekly South Evansville Community Outreach fees if no other suitable, less costly arrangement can be accomplished.

Jonathan Grider, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A01-1005-CR-246
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony manufacturing methamphetamine.

Julian D. Grady v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1003-CR-174
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

Nicholas N. Harless v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1001-CR-163
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Brandon D. Lange v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1003-CR-167
Criminal. Affirms convictions of five counts of Class A felony child molestation and three counts of Class C felony child molestation. Reverses adjudicating Lange to be a credit restricted felon and remands for further proceedings.

Alan Akers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-357
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor patronizing a prostitute.

Paul Dodson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1002-CR-123
Criminal. Affirms revocation of work release.

Harvey O. Coffey, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A04-1005-CR-316
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to one count of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class B felony child molesting.

Noble Adigbli v. Dave Novak, d/b/a Novak & Co. LLC d/b/a Steamshowers4less.com (NFP)
45A05-0912-CV-698
Civil. Affirms judgment in favor of Novak on Adigbli’s suit for alleged expenses he incurred including lender charges associated with the delay and labor charges to dismantle the unserviceable steam shower, install a replacement, and repair drywall.

Matthew Holland v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1004-CR-218
Criminal. Reverses order granting Holland’s petition requesting permission to file a belated notice of appeal and dismisses his appeal.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to eight cases for the week ending Nov. 5.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT