Search Results

Indiana Court of Appeals

State of Indiana v. Aaron L. Riggs, II
20A-CR-2144
Criminal. Affirms the Daviess Superior Court’s order holding that Indiana Code § 35-40-5-11.5 was unenforceable because it conflicts with the trial rules, and granting defendant Aaron L. Riggs II’s request to depose the alleged child victim in his child molesting case. Finds that any substantive provisions of the child deposition statute do not exempt the procedural provisions of the statute from the general rule that Indiana Trial Rules supersede conflicting procedural statutes. Also finds that the procedural provisions of the statute conflict with the trial rules, so the procedural provisions are unenforceable.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Gregory Wilson, Sr., in his capacity as the Executive Director of the State of Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Betty Jo Wilkening
20A-PL-1960
Civil plenary. Reverses the Lake Superior Court’s grant of judgment on the evidence in favor of Betty Jo Wilkening and against Gregory L. Wilson Sr. in his capacity as the executive director of the State of Indiana Civil Rights Commission. Finds that the trial court erred in granting Wilkening’s motion because it misinterpreted the “shall” in Indiana Code § 22-9.5-6-8 to be mandatory rather than directory in a housing discrimination suit brought against her. Remands for a new trial.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Terrance Leroy Smoots, Jr. v. State of Indiana
20A-CR-2101
Criminal. Affirms Terrance Smoots Jr.’s convictions of Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury, Level 4 felony criminal confinement resulting in moderate bodily injury, Level 6 felony obstruction of justice, Level 6 felony attempted obstruction of justice and a finding that he is a habitual offender, and his 24-year aggregate sentence. Finds the state proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Smoots’ conduct was designed to prevent Robert Simmons from testifying against him, so Smoots forfeited his right to confront Simmons at trial in light of that wrongdoing and his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated by the admission of Simmons’ statements at trial. Also finds the Madison Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Smoots. Finally, finds Smoots’ sentence is not inappropriate.