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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT