ILNews

Supreme Court grants 3 transfers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted three transfers yesterday in cases involving a resisting law enforcement conviction, denial of benefits from Indiana's Second Injury Fund, and the reversal of a jury award filed by a college student cleared of rape.

In Bryan G. Mosley v. State, No. 49A02-0802-CR-188, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Bryan Mosley's conviction of resisting law enforcement, finding sufficient evidence to support it. The appellate court had some concerns regarding the brief filed by Mosley's public defender and considered the brief "perfunctory" and "baseless."

In James A. Kohlmeyer v. Second Injury Fund, No. 93A02-0711-EX-1000, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board's denial of James Kohlmeyer's petition for payments of benefits from the Second Injury Fund. At issue in the appeal was whether Social Security disability benefits count toward the threshold amount of benefits that have to be received to become eligible for benefits from the fund. The appellate court ruled the threshold requirement regarding benefits received as set out in Indiana Code must be met by only considering workers' compensation benefits.

In Susana Henri v. Stephen Curto, No. 49A02-0709-CV-777, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of Stephen Curto. The lower court found he didn't rape Susana Henri and awarded him $45,000 on his counterclaim. An appellate court majority found the trial court engaged in ex parte communication with the jury, and the presumption of error from that communication hasn't been rebutted. As a result, the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Henri's motion to correct error. Chief Judge John Baker dissented, calling the majority's decision to reverse the jury verdict award a "radical act."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT