Opinions Oct. 23, 2018

Keywords Opinions
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Indiana Court of Appeals
Damon L. Maffett v. State of Indiana

82A04-1711-CR-2679
Criminal. Affirms Damon Maffett’s 10-year sentence for conviction of Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Finds the Vanderburgh Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted three minutes of a videotaped police interview of Maffett and police testimony about the presence of handgun ammunition in the apartment. Finds Maffett’s sentence is not inappropriate based on his prior and extensive criminal history record.

Nicholas Carter v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
12A02-1711-CR-2770
Criminal. Affirms Nicholas Carter’s convictions for two counts of Level 6 felonies domestic battery and Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass. Finds Carter’s substantial rights were not prejudiced by the addition of charges after his first trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury. Also finds the state produced sufficient evidence to support his convictions for criminal trespass and domestic battery in the presence of a child.

S.H. v. M.A. (mem. dec.)
18A-PO-526
Order of protection. Reverses the Marion Circuit Court’s issuance of a protective order for S.H. against the mother of his child, M.A., after M.A. allegedly sent him 165 text messages during a 24-four-hour period. Finds there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s issuance of the protective order based on stalking. Remands with instructions for the trial court to vacate the protective order.

Tyler Wade Buskirk v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
18A-CR-350
Criminal. Affirms Tyler Buskirk’s conviction for Level 3 felony child molesting. Finds Buskirk waived his claim of error based on the admission of J.M.’s prior out-of-court statement. Regardless of the waiver, finds the J.M.’s statement did not constitute fundamental error.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}