ILNews

Opinions Oct. 25, 2013

October 25, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael A. Lane v. State of Indiana
82A05-1212-CR-640
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder, Class B felony conspiracy to commit dealing in a schedule II controlled substance, and two counts of Class C felony criminal recklessness. Holds an instruction on reckless homicide was not warranted and that brief testimonial hearsay evidence admitted was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nathaniel Baker v. State of Indiana
35A05-1210-CR-543
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft. The trial court erred in admitting the evidence of Baker’s prior bad acts but that admission was harmless.

Jason Lee Sowers v. State of Indiana
08A02-1208-CR-640
Criminal. Grants Sowers’ petition for rehearing and concludes that the evidence is sufficient to permit retrial. Judge Riley would deny the rehearing petition.

Carrie A. Krampen v. James J. Krampen
45A05-1212-DR-628
Domestic relation. Reverses grant of petition to modify child support and provide an accounting of future child support payments filed by James Krampen. There was insufficient evidence to support a finding that child support has been misappropriated, so the modification of child support on that basis was inappropriate. Remands with instructions to enter a new child support order.  Judge Kirsch dissents.

Tyrez Boyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1303-CR-287
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Daniel E. Wilkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1303-PC-117
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Michael Grey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1303-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms convictions of six counts each of Class A felony child molesting and Class B felony child molesting, and two counts of Class C felony child molesting.

In the Adoption of B.R.; F.R. v. J.B. and E.B. (NFP)
18A02-1302-AD-185
Adoption. Affirms order granting petition for adoption of B.R. by J.B.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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