Monday, January 26, 2009
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court:
This Thursday, Jan.. 29th:
9:00 AM - Christopher Bailey v. State of Indiana - Following a bench trial, the Marion Superior Court found Bailey guilty of battery and disorderly conduct for an incident with two school administrators at Perry Meridian High School, where Bailey was a student. The Court of Appeals reversed for insufficient evidence in Bailey v. State, 893 N.E.2d 749 (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2008), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal. Attorney for Bailey: Anna E. Onatis, Indianapolis, IN. Attorney for State: Nicole M. Schuster, Indianapolis, IN. [See ILB COA opinion summary here, 3rd case.]
9:45 AM - Bryan G. Mosley v. State of Indiana - Following a bench trial, the Marion Superior Court found Mosley guilty of resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor. Affirming the conviction in an unpublished memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals opined that when there are no meritorious arguments to be made, the better approach is to file a brief as described in Packer v. State, 777 N.E.2d 733 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). See Mosley v. State, No. 49A02-0802-CR-188, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2008), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
10:30 AM - Susana Henri v. Stephen Curto - Henri sued Curto, alleging that their sexual encounter was non-consensual. Curto counterclaimed for tortious interference with his academic contract, alleging that his suspension from Butler University resulted from Henri's statements to Butler. Following a jury trial, a verdict was rendered in favor of Curto on both Henri's complaint and Curto's counterclaim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that certain irregularities during jury deliberations warranted a new trial. Henri v. Curto, 891 N.E.2d 135 (Ind. Ct. App., July 31, 2008), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transferthe case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal. [See ILB COA opinion summary here, 2nd case.]
Webcasts will be available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals that will be webcast:*
None apparently scheduled.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals that will NOT be webcast:
This Tuesday, Jan.. 27th:
10:00 AM - Michael W. George vs. State of Indiana - Police stopped driver Michael George for speeding and discovered his driver's license was suspended. George's car was impounded and an inventory search was conducted which yielded evidence of morphine pills in the car. George appeals his conviction of possession of a controlled substance, a Class D felony, contending that the inventory search of his car was unconstitutional and therefore, the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the pills and their chemical identity. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Baker, Judges Robb and Bradford. The Scheduled Panel Members are; Judges Robb, Crone and Brown. [Where: West Lafayette High School, 1105 N. Grant Street, West Lafayette, Indiana 47906-2400]0
10:00 AM - Frank J. Vance vs. David L. & Marilyn Stainbrook, and Hilbert & Barbara Just - Appellee's David L. Stainbrook, Marilyn Stainbrook, Hilbert Just, and Barbara Just, by counsel, have filed a Verified Motion to Dismiss Appeal. The Court, having reviewed Appellee's Verified Motion, has concluded that Oral Argument will assist this court in determining whether to grant or to deny it. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judge Kirsch, Senior Judges Sullivan and Sharpnack. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom]
This Wednesday, Jan.. 30th:
10:00 AM - A. B. vs. State of Indiana - Appellant-Defendant A.B. appeals the trial court's finding that there was sufficient evidence upon which to conclude that he committed a delinquent act, specifically, Auto Theft, a Class D felony, which would be a crime if committed by an adult. Specifically, A.B. contends that the trial court's determination that his mere presence in the driver's seat of a stolen car was sufficient to establish that he exerted unauthorized control beyond a reasonable doubt is not supported by the circumstances of this case. A.B. challenges the trial court's determination by claiming that, at most, the evidence presented supported a suspicion that he might have been involved in the theft of the car, and such a suspicion is not enough to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges May, Crone and Bradford. [Where: Heritage Christian High School, 6401 E. 75th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46250]
* ILB note: As of now, the 2009 COA webcasts, both live and archived, may be accessed here
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 26, 2009 06:51 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments