ILNews

Opinions Oct. 11, 2011

October 11, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Roger Loughry, also known as Mayorroger
10-2967
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence
Criminal. Reverses District Court’s decision to allow admission as evidence “hard core” pornography without examining it or without explaining its reasoning under Rule 403. Holds that the material was highly inflammatory and held only minimal probative value, but created extreme prejudice against Loughry. Remands to the District Court for proceedings consistent with opinion.

Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of C.G., Minor Child and Her Mother, Z.G. v. Marion County Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc.
49S04-1101-JT-46
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s termination of mother’s parental rights, holding that while the Marion County Department of Child Services made several errors, none rose to the level of violating the mother’s due process rights or warranting a reversal.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Julius T. Anderson v. Richard M.Ivy
18A04-1107-MI-357
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court’s decision that Ivy was entitled to a special election, holding that no evidence exists to suggest Anderson’s misconduct affected any votes.

Jeffrey Havvard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1103-CR-109
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Daniel W. Oliver v. State of Indiana (NFP)
07A04-1012-CR-768
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class D felony theft.  

Yusuf Fields v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1012-CR-815
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class A felony attempted murder and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Dawon Strong v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1104-CR-143
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Justin Lashaway v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1011-CR-773
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony conspiracy to commit child molesting.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of G.H., T.H., and B.H.; I.H. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
66A01-1102-JT-40
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Randy S. Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1104-PC-196
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Philip D. Krantz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1104-CR-146
Criminal. Affirms sentence for four Class D felonies resulting from a plea agreement.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

 
 

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