Opinions July 19, 2019

Keywords Opinions

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ryan Baxter v. State of Indiana

Criminal. Affirms Ryan Baxter’s conviction of Level 1 child molesting, finding the Elkhart Superior Court did not err in admitting a medical report, and the victim’s testimony was not incredibly dubious.

Kevin Martin v. Hon. Hugh Hunt, et al.
Civil tort. Affirms the Sullivan Circuit Court’s dismissal of Kevin Martin’s suit against a judge, a court clerk and Department of Correction officials demanding to be released from prison for pain and suffering resulting from a disagreement over a copying request. Finds Martin’s multiple violations of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure make his argument unable to be ascertained, and thus any issues he has attempted to present are waived.

Charles Dugger v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms Charles Dugger’s convictions of four counts of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class B felony child molesting, one count of Class C felony child molesting, one count of Class A felony vicarious sexual gratification and one count of Class B felony vicarious sexual gratification. Finds Dugger’s right to a speedy trial was not violated based on the Barker factors. Also finds the Hendricks Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Dugger’s motion for mistrial.

Luis Angel Mendoza v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms Luis Angel Mendoza’s convictions of Class B felony child molesting and Class C felony child molesting. Finds the theory of the case Mendoza presented during his opening statement opened the door to questioning of J.R. regarding his knowledge of the relationship between W. and Mendoza, so the Lake Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing such testimony.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of S.D. (Child) and L.V. (Father); L.V. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the termination of father L.V.’s parental rights to S.D. Finds the Vigo Circuit Court did not violate L.V.’s due process rights hindering his opportunity for reunification. Also finds the trial court’s judgment terminating L.V.’s parental rights was not clearly erroneous because the Department of Child Services proved that termination was in S.D.’s best interests.

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 }}