ILNews

Opinions Sept. 30, 2013

September 30, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Opinions, Sept. 30, 2013

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeffrey Archer v. State of Indiana

49A05-1209-CR-448
Criminal. Affirms Class A felony conviction of child molestation, rejecting arguments that the trial court’s statement about the victim’s competency was an impermissible vouching statement and that the court improperly allowed vouching statements by multiple witnesses. The court’s denial of Archer’s request to present evidence of the victim’s post-allegation demeanor also was proper, as were jury instructions and the effectiveness of Archer’s trial counsel.

Paul J. Livers II, v. State of Indiana
06A01-1303-CR-119
Criminal. Affirms convictions for battery causing bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor, and interference with reporting a crime, a Class C misdemeanor. Livers claims his counsel was ineffective because the attorney failed to file a motion for a jury trial in a timely manner. The COA finds the trial court record does not indicate that Livers wanted a jury trial prior to his trial counsel’s belated requested. Also rejects Livers’ argument that the testimony of the victim was incredibly dubious.

Joseph M. Guinn v. Applied Composites Engineering, Inc.
49A02-1303-CC-239
Civil. Reverses grant of summary judgment in favor of Applied Composites Engineering Inc., and remands to the trial court for consideration of Joseph Guinn’s claim of tortious interference with a contract due to ACE’s enforcement of a non-compete clause that resulted in his termination from a subsequent employer. Summary judgment was improper because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether ACE’s conduct was justified, fair or reasonable under the circumstances.

Amy Palmer v. Margaret Sales and Unique Insurance Company
45A03-1302-SC-31
Small claims. Reverses denial of motion for change of judge and motion for jury trial and remands with instructions to grant change of judge, implement procedures for the selection of a new judge and transfer the case to the plenary docket, the majority holding that the question of timeliness of a change of judge request should be guided by the dissenting opinion in McClure v. Cooper, 893 N.E.2d 337 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Judge Mark Bailey, who wrote the McClure opinion, dissented in part, finding that the court shouldn’t reach McClure, which he acknowledged may have been wrongly decided, and that because Palmer acknowledged liability, proceedings on remand should be limited to the matter of damages.

William A. Asher v. Stephanie J. Coomler
49A04-1302-DR-71
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court modification of child support, holding that a magistrate was not within the class of judicial officers specified in Trial Rules for selection of a special judge and therefore could not have presided after appointment of a special judge. Remands to the trial court with instructions to permit the parties to select a successor special judge.

David M. Green v. State of Indiana
45A03-1210-PC-418
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief from his sentence of two consecutive 45-year sentences for his conviction of two counts of murder, concluding that a defense attorney’s failure to object to an anonymous jury was not ineffective assistance of counsel.

Tom Trisler d/b/a Canal House Antiques v. Clayton L. Carter
35A02-1302-SC-192
Small claim. Reverses the trial court’s order that Trisler reimburse Carter the purchase price for a chest of drawers. Rules when Carter bought the piece of furniture at the antiques store, he did not expect the business would remedy any defect. Consequently he has no legitimate reason to revoke his acceptance of the chest of drawers.

Gary Oswalt v. State of Indiana
35A02-1208-CR-684
Criminal. Affirms conviction and aggregate sentence of 84 years for two counts of child molesting as Class A felonies, child solicitation as a Class D felony, and five counts of possession of child pornography as Class D felonies. Rules Oswalt did not exhaust his peremptory challenges and therefore waived review of the trial court’s denial of his request to strike Juror No. 28 for cause. Finds the five charges for possession of child pornography fell within the statutory limitations period. Concludes that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Oswalt’s convictions for five counts of possession of child pornography and that Oswalt failed to demonstrate he was denied a fair trial due to the charges of possession of child pornography. Upholds the sentence as appropriate considering the nature of the offense and the character of Oswalt.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.C., R.C., and B.C., Minor Children and R.C., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
72A01-1301-JT-35
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of R.C.’s (father) parental rights to K.C., R.C. and B.C.

Joseph A. Taylor v. Dr. William H. Wolfe, in his Individual Capacity as an Employee of Corizon and Medical Director at the Pendleton Correctional Facility, Corizon, Inc., and Pharma Corr, (NFP)
48A05-1212-PL-638
Civil Plenary. Affirms dismissal of Taylor’s complaint against Wolfe, Corizon Inc. and Pharma Corr for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In the Matter of; H.B., G.M., P.M., and A.C. (Minors), C.M. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services and Lake County Court Appointed Special Advocate (NFP)
45A03-1302-JT-62
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating C.M.’s (mother) parental rights to her minor children, H.B., G.M., P.M. and A.C.

Gerald W. Staton v. Dawn M. Dobyns-Gross, Indiana Family Social Services Administration, Tippecanoe County, Indiana and Tippecanoe County Prosecutor (NFP)
79A02-1305-CT-412
Civil Tort. Affirms denial of Staton’s motion to correct error and the dismissal of Staton’s complaint.

Mark Burkett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A04-1305-CR-262
Criminal. Affirms 20-year sentence for criminal confinement, a Class B felony.

Brandon Stewart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1301-CR-6
Criminal. Affirms conviction for two counts child molesting, both Class A felonies, one count sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class B felony, one count child molesting, a Class C felony, and one count sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class C felony. Also affirms aggregate sentence of 46 years.
 
The Indiana Supreme Court and the 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