ILNews

Opinions Sept. 12, 2012

September 12, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Dezmon Gaines v. State of Indiana
34A05-1201-CR-21
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence. Indiana Code 9-19-19-4 is not void for vagueness and the officer’s search of Gaines was reasonable. Judge Crone concurs in result.

Jerry L. Kindred v. State of Indiana
28A01-1202-PC-50
Post conviction. Reverses conviction of Class A felony child molesting. Kindred was denied a fair trial based on the extensive hearsay and vouching testimony that was admitted in error. Kindred may be retried.

State of Indiana v. David Bisard
49A04-1109-CR-459
Criminal. Reverses suppression of Bisard’s blood for purposes of various DUI charges. Finds the medical assistant did draw his blood in a way that followed physician-approved protocols and the implied consent statutes indicate that blood evidence is admissible so long as it complies with the rules of evidence. Read more about the decision.

Wayne Brant v. City of Indianapolis
49A05-1201-OV-12
Local ordinance violation. Reverses finding Brant violated a local noise ordinance enforced by the city of Indianapolis regarding his four barking dogs. Concludes that the plain, ordinary and usual meaning of the term “persons” as used in the local noise ordinance necessitates that the complaints of just one neighbor are insufficient.

In the Matter of the Adoption of J.W.; T. McD. v. G.C. (NFP)
53A04-1202-AD-78
Adoption. Affirms denial of T.McD.’s objection to and motion to vacate the decree of adoption of J.W.

Ethel S. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-CR-19
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

Kevin Joseph Shufford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1202-CR-72
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two counts of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and two counts of Class D felony dealing in a substance represented to be a controlled substance.

Brad A. Fisher v. Brandy Fisher (NFP)
43A03-1202-DR-86
Domestic relation. Dismisses Brad Fisher’s appeal of the order denying his verified petition to deem judgment paid in favor of Brandy Fisher.

Robert Lee Pickens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A03-1112-CR-585
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, finding he is a habitual offender, and 30-year sentence.

Troy E. Reik v. State of Indiana (NFP)
11A01-1203-CR-134
Criminal. Affirms order Reik pay restitution.

In Re The Paternity of E.W.; T.S. v. J.W. and V.W. (NFP)
65A05-1201-JP-23
Juvenile paternity. Affirms denial of natural father’s request to change E.W.’s name and for attorney fees, and affirms refusal to make natural father’s support obligation retroactive to his paternity filing.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of Cord. L., Cort. L., & Cha. L., Minor Children, and their Mother, C.H.; C.H. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1202-JT-101
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Aljerome Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1203-CR-147
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery.
 

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