« Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week | Main | Ind. Courts - "LaPorte Judge Wants To Start Re-entry Court" »

Monday, February 25, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 6 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Kevin Book v. State of Indiana , a 23-page opinion, Chief Judge Baker writes:

In this case, we explore the delicate balance between a trial judge’s authority to efficiently control the court proceedings and a defendant’s right to confer with counsel before deciding whether and when to testify at trial. Appellant-defendant Kevin Book appeals his conviction for Murder, a felony. Specifically, Book argues that the trial court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution when he was allegedly compelled to make a decision whether to testify at a particular time during the trial. In essence, Book claims that the trial court improperly foreclosed his counsel from determining when—or if—he should testify on his own behalf.

Book also claims that the trial court abused its discretion and violated Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) in permitting a ten-year-old witness to testify against him, that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, and that the sixty-year sentence is inappropriate. We conclude that the trial court did not unfairly impinge on Book’s right to counsel or improperly preclude him from testifying. And finding no other error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In Stan Klotz v. Hoyt and Kornmann , a 14-page opinion, Chief Judge Baker wrties:
Tenant-landlord disputes are all too common. Here, two tenants undisputedly stopped paying rent after the first one and one-half months of their lease, did a substantial amount of damage to the inside of the residence, and abandoned the residence without informing the landlord or leaving their respective forwarding addresses. The tenants are contractually obligated, by virtue of their valid and binding lease, to repay the back due rent and late fees notwithstanding the landlord’s compliance with statutory requirements governing the handling of security deposits. And, in any event, we find that the landlord herein did comply with all relevant statutes.

Appellant-plaintiff Stan Klotz appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint for breach of lease against appellees-defendants Sarah Hoyt and Chrissy Kornmann. Klotz contends that the trial court erroneously concluded that he was not entitled to rent and damages because he allegedly failed to provide an itemized list of damages to Hoyt and Kornmann within the forty-five-day statutory timeframe. Finding that Klotz was not required to comply with the forty-five-day timeframe to be entitled to back due rent payments and that, for the purpose of damages and the security deposit, he did comply with the relevant statutes, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand with instructions to enter judgment in Klotz’s favor in the amount of $6,000. * * *

FRIEDLANDER, J., concurs.
ROBB, J., concurs in result with opinion. [that begins] I concur in the result reached by the majority because I agree that the lease agreement was terminated on February 20, 2007, and that Klotz provided an itemized list of damages within forty-five days of this termination. However, I am concerned that allowing a landlord to provide this notice on the day of a hearing contravenes the purpose of the notice requirement, which is “to inform the tenant that the landlord is keeping the security and for what reason, as well as to allow that tenant an opportunity to challenge the costs for which the deposit is being used.”

NFP civil opinions today (1):

Martha Sue Miller v. Eric Williams (NFP) - "The land at issue here was farmland. Miller farmed the land. Whether this use of the land was sufficient to establish the element of control was a question of fact for a fact finder and is not appropriate for summary judgment.

"Williams has not established as a matter of law that Miller cannot prove the elements of adverse possession. The factual questions associated with this case preclude the grant of summary judgment."

NFP criminal opinions today (5):

Mark A. Chandler v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Betty Ann Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Santiago Valdez v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Willie Dumes v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Christopher Swartz v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 25, 2008 01:25 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions