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
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