ILNews

Opinions Sept. 13, 2013

September 13, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jerry A. Smith v. State of Indiana
15A05-1208-CR-411
Criminal. Affirms Dearborn Superior Court’s denial of Smith’s motion to dismiss three charges and reverses the court’s denial of the motion to dismiss 15 state charges. Rules most of the charges brought against Smith for an alleged Ponzi scheme violated double jeopardy because they were for the same conduct included in his guilty plea to a federal indictment. However, the charges related to Smith’s failing to register with the Indiana Secretary of State as a broker-dealer can stand since they were not related to the federal charges. Judge Nancy Vaidik dissents, arguing the remaining charges also violate double jeopardy because both the federal and state charges rely, partially, on Smith’s failure to register.

Jerry A. Smith v. State of Indiana
24A01-1210-CR-469
Criminal. Affirms Franklin Circuit Court’s order dismissing 24 state charges and denying Smith’s motion to dismiss five other charges. Reserves denial of motion to dismiss remaining state court charges and remands for further proceedings. Finds most of the charges brought against Smith for an alleged Ponzi scheme were for the same conduct included in his guilty plea to a federal indictment and therefore violate double-jeopardy prohibitions. However, the charges related to Smith’s failing to register with the Indiana secretary of state as a broker-dealer can stand because they were not related to the federal charges. Judge Nancy Vaidik dissents, arguing the remaining charges also violate double jeopardy since both the federal and state charges rely, partially, on Smith’s failure to register.

Von Tobel Corporation, Individually, and d/b/a Von Tobel Lumber & Hardware; and Von Tobel Lumber & Home Center, Inc. v. Chi-Tec Construction & Remodeling, Inc.; John F. Ziola, Jr.; Et Al.
46A03-1301-MI-18
Miscellaneous/mechanic’s lien. Reverses grant of summary judgment in favor of the Margret Lynn West trust, one of the defendant parties, and orders summary judgment entered for Von Tobel. The panel reversed a trial court ruling that the lien was invalid because a pre-lien notice named “Von Tobel Lumber & Home Center Inc.” and the lien notice named “Von Tobel Corporation” as claimants. The difference was minimal, not misleading and didn’t prejudice the trust or other parties, the panel held.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Jo. B. & Ju. B.(Minor Children) and T. B.(Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A05-1303-JT-92
Juvenile. Affirms termination of T.B.’s parental rights to her children, Ju.B. and Jo.B.

Lamar Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1302-CR-46
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Charles Grieco v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1301-CR-32
Criminal. Affirms conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, as a Class C misdemeanor.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions 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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT