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. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT