ILNews

Supreme Court grants 3 transfers

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer Thursday to three cases that involve amending charging information after the omnibus date, police questioning about drugs during a routine traffic stop, and consolidating a preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits without notice.

In Michael Hill v. State of Indiana, No.49A02-0701-CR-110, the appellate court affirmed the trial court didn't err by allowing the state to amend the charging information to add the attempted sexual misconduct with a minor charge after the omnibus date. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed Hill's conviction on the count and remanded for the trial court to vacate the conviction because the state didn't present sufficient evidence to convict Hill on the charge.

In State of Indiana v. Raymond L. Washington Jr., No. 02A03-0703-CR-124, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order granting Washington's motion to suppress marijuana seized from his pocket during a traffic stop. The Court of Appeals addressed the propriety of the common practice of police officers asking a person if he or she has any drugs during an otherwise routine traffic stop and decided that the police officer's question of whether Washington had any drugs on him was unreasonable under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

In John C. Roberts, M.D. v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc., No. 49A02-0701-CV-17, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's award of judgment in favor of Community Hospitals. The court determined Roberts was prejudiced by the consolidation of the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits without giving Roberts prior notice and remanded to the trial court to determine sufficiency of evidence to support the judgment in favor of Community Hospitals. Roberts had filed a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against Community Hospitals after he was terminated from a residency program for his history of unprofessional behavior.
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. 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