Opinions Oct. 19, 2012

October 19, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline Friday.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline Friday.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Rodney Killebrew II v. State of Indiana

Criminal. Reserves a conviction of possession of marijuana after concluding the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence obtained at an illegal traffic stop. The court found the police officer had no grounds to stop the driver because the continuous use of a turn signal is not a traffic violation and the officer’s actions did not fall within his community caretaking function.  

Alton Neville v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder and carrying a handgun without a license, holding that while there was prosecutorial error that included improperly presenting facts not in evidence and improperly inflaming the passions and prejudices of the jury, the improper comments did not rise to the level of fundamental error.

In Re the Marriage of Yan Wolfman v. Estelle Wolfman (NFP)
Domestic relations/divorce. Remands to the trial court to clarify division of assets.

Jeffery Sanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjuctication as a habitual offender.
Delareco Pacely v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms 18-year sentence for three convictions of Class C felony child molesting.

Albert Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms trial court denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Brandon Boles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Reverses 10-day sentence for failure to complete community service as a requirement of a sentence for a conviction of public intoxication.

Donzahue Pearson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to dismiss Class D felony charge of sex offender who failed to possess valid identification.  

Dean Eric Blanck v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms 730-day sentence after a guilty plea to charges of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and Class C misdemeanor operating while intoxicated.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?