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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT