« Ind. Decisions - Federal court grants preliminary injunction re judicial speech rights | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 14 NFP) »

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Monday COA opinions now available; 1 (and 5 NFP)

For publication opinions Monday (1):

In Robert R. Gregory, Jr. v. State of Indiana, a 20-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:

Appellant-Defendant Robert R. Gregory, Jr. (“Gregory”) appeals following his convictions and sentence for Dealing Methamphetamine, as a Class B felony, and Conspiracy. We affirm the conviction and sentence for Dealing Methamphetamine and remand with instructions to vacate the conspiracy conviction. * * *

In sum, the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence resulting from the search of the Callaway residence. There was sufficient evidence, both circumstantial and direct, to support Gregory’s conviction for dealing methamphetamine. The prosecutor did not commit misconduct in his reading of a poem in voir dire, questions regarding the dangers of a methamphetamine lab, or comments in closing argument. Finally, Gregory’s maximum sentence of twenty years is not inappropriate. However, we remand to the trial court with instruction to vacate Gregory’s conviction for conspiracy.

NFP civil opinions Monday (2):

In Donald A. Bradshaw v. Diana D. Bradshaw (NFP) - "With regard to the division of the marital estate, the evidence of record supports the findings of the trial court and the findings support the judgment. The child support order should be revised to reflect H.B.’s attainment of age 21 and to reflect Diana’s income from her actual investment choice. The award of attorney’s fees due to alleged contempt of court is reversed, as is the order for extra-ordinary educational expenses of J.B."

In John Zane v. City of Portage and Clifford Brich, et al (NFP), a 20-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:

John Zane appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Portage, the Chief of Police of Portage, and three Portage police officers (“Portage” and the “Portage Police,” respectively). Zane argues that the trial court incorrectly determined that there are no genuine issues of material fact in regard to his claims that Portage and the Portage Police violated his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and are liable under Indiana tort law for damage to his property that occurred when the Portage Police entered Zane’s house to retrieve a suicidal individual. Finding that Portage and the Portage Police are immune from liability under Zane’s state law tort claims pursuant to the Indiana Tort Claims Act and that the police properly acted in response to exigent circumstances and without excessive force or deliberate indifference, we affirm. * * *

The trial court correctly determined that Portage and the Portage Police are immune from liability under Zane’s state law tort claims pursuant to the Indiana Tort Claims Act. Further, the Portage Police did not violate Zane’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and are therefore not liable to Zane under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Finally, Zane has not shown that Portage has an inadequate policy or training program for officers faced with similar situations, and Portage is therefore not liable to Zane pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed.

Note: See also this May 6th ILB entry about the April 16th NFP Court of Appeals opinion in the case of James V. Lemmon, et al v. James A. Herman, et al .

NFP criminal opinions Monday (3):

Stephen L. Reed v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jose Vasquez v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Larry Joe Lyons v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 7, 2008 12:14 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions