Search Results

Indiana Court of Appeals
Royce A. Pruitt v. State of Indiana
23A-CR-2404
Criminal. Affirms a Marion Superior Court jury’s finding Royce Pruitt guilty of Level 1 felony child molesting and the trial court’s sentencing him to 25 years of incarceration, with five years suspended and three on sex-offender probation. Finds that that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pruitt’s non-party request for production and concluding that it did not need to conduct an in-camera review of the Indiana Department of Child Services’ reports.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Gage Peters v. Dennis J. Quakenbush, II, and Christina Reagle
24A-PL-405
Civil plenary. Affirms the Hamilton Superior Court’s judgment in favor of Hamilton County Sheriff Dennis J. Quakenbush, II and the Indiana Department of Correction’s motion to dismiss Gage Peters’ complaint seeking a declaration that, under Indiana law, he is required to register as a sex offender only for a period of 10 years. Finds Florida imposed a lawful lifetime registration requirement, and Peters was subject to it, pursuant to the other-jurisdiction provision, when he moved to Indiana. Also finds that the plain language of the other-jurisdiction provision compels registration for individuals with out-of-state registration obligations regardless of the source of those obligations.  Judge L. Mark Bailey concurs in result with separate opinion. Judge Paul Mathias dissents with separate opinion.

The following opinion was published after IL’s deadline Wednesday:
7^th Circuit Court of Appeals
Rene Galvan, Jr. v. State of Indiana and Joanie Crum, Regional Manager, in her official and individual capacities
22-2462
Civil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Sarah Evans Barker. Affirms the district court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the State of Indiana and Joanie Crum against claims alleged by Rene Galvan, Jr. that he was terminated from employment based on his race and sex and was retaliated against based on his complaints of discrimination. Finds the record reveals complaints regarding Galvan’s job performance by third parties who interacted with him, and he has not argued that those complainants themselves possessed any discriminatory motive. Also finds Galvan has failed to identify any other circumstantial evidence in the record that, considered in the totality of the record as a whole, would support an inference of race or sex discrimination.