ILNews

Opinions Sept. 28, 2010

September 28, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Sarah Haag, et al. v. Mark Castro, The Indiana Youth Soccer Association, et al.
29A04-1001-CT-10
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Virginia Surety Co. Members of the Carmel Commotion Soccer Team traveled to Colorado for a soccer tournament. While in Colorado, the team decided to go on a white-water rafting trip as a team-building activity. While traveling to raft, the van collided with another vehicle and team members were injured. Virginia Surety argued that while the team was sanctioned to attend and compete at the tournament, the use of the van to go white-water rafting was not a use “in the business of the Named Insured” and Indiana Youth Soccer Association did not have knowledge of or authorize the rafting activity. Judge Riley dissents.  

Christopher Casady v. State of Indiana
53A01-0909-CR-431
Criminal. Rules trial court did not err in denying Casady’s motion to dismiss because he failed to show how he was harmed by the state filing additional charges and the subsequent dismissal of the original charges; the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions of 16 counts of Class D felony voyeurism; the warrants to search Casady’s camera and home were properly supported by probable cause; the trial court did not err in admitting evidence seized during execution of the warrants; Casady waived any argument that the videotapes admitted into evidence were unfairly prejudicial; and his 18-year sentence with 12 years suspended was not inappropriate.

D.C. v. K.C. (NFP)
45A03-0912-CV-609
Civil. Affirms trial court order granting modification of custody from father to mother.

John Pearson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-127
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

William Washington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1002-CR-113
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Adam L. Blake v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0912-CR-742
Criminal. Affirms conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Class B felony.

Michael Myers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1002-CR-82
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and rules the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Myers to serve the remaining 4 years of his previously suspended sentence.

Timothy L. King v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-191
Criminal. Affirms trial court ruling that King serve 8 years of his previous sentence in the Department of Correction after revocation of probation and community corrections placement.

Joshua Peter Lindsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1002-CR-318
Criminal. Affirms 35-year sentence for Class A felony attempted murder conviction, 35-year sentence for Class A felony kidnapping conviction, and 12-year sentence for Class B felony attempted escape conviction – all to be served concurrently. Rules trial court’s statement regarding victim was harmless error.

Ronald A. Manley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1002-PC-60
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Wanda A. Newbry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1002-CR-125
Criminal. Affirms 15-year sentence following a guilty plea to Class B felony delivery of cocaine, which is to run consecutive to a 15-year sentence Newbry received in a companion case.

Wanda A. Newbry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1002-CR-126  
Criminal. Affirms 15-year sentence following a guilty plea to Class B felony delivery of cocaine, which is to run consecutive to a 15-year term Newbry received in a companion case.

Angela M. (Greene) McDonald v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A01-1004-CR-165
Criminal. Affirms 3-year sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony forgery.

Christine Starbuck v. Vigo County Public Library (NFP)
93A02-1001-EX-67
Civil. Affirms order of full Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board denying Starbuck’s application for adjustment of claim.

Marvin L. Ervin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-123
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender.


Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT