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

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT