Monday, November 08, 2010
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 11/8/10):
Wednesday, November 10th
- 10:00 AM - Jeffery Sloan v. State of Indiana (18S04-1009-CR-502) - In 2007, a victim reported that Sloan had regularly molested her from 1984 to 1991. Sloan was charged with one count of child molesting as a Class A felony and one count as a Class C felony. The Delaware Circuit Court denied Sloan’s motion to dismiss the Class C charge on grounds it had been filed after expiration of the five-year statute of limitations. Sloan was convicted on both counts and sentenced to forty years and six years, consecutive. The Court of Appeals reversed the Class C conviction, concluding that any concealment of the molestation ended in 1991, rather than the date on which the offenses were reported to authorities, but otherwise affirmed. Sloan v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1095 (Ind. Ct. App. May 17, 2010), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: ILB summary here, 4th opinion. Both Appellant and Appellee petitions granted. From the opinion:To hold that the five-year statute of limitations does not begin to run until such time as a victim discloses the abuse to authorities, without regard to when a defendant’s acts of concealment terminated, does not serve the statute’s intended purpose. * * * Under these circumstances, and following the direction of Thakkar and Sipe, we find that although Sloan engaged in threats, intimidation, and other positive acts of concealment during the years that he was molesting M.A., the concealment ceased after the molestation stopped in 1991, and it was then that the statute of limitation began to run. The applicable five-year limitation period would therefore have expired in 1996; consequently, the trial court erred when it denied Sloan’s motion to dismiss.
- 10:45 AM - Elmer Baker v. State of Indiana (17S04-1009-CR-500) - At a second trial in the DeKalb Superior Court, Baker was convicted of molesting two granddaughters. The Court of Appeals affirmed in Baker v. State, 928 N.E.2d 890 (Ind. 2010), vacated. Baker raises issues concerning the application of Castillo v. State, 734 N.E.2d 299 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), summarily aff’d 741 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. 2001), and the application of Indiana Code section 35-34-1-5. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 11/15/10):
Tuesday, November 16th
- 8:30 AM - Susanne Gaudin, et al. v. J.W. Austin, et al. (07S04-1010-CV-600) - In 2009, the Brown County Commissioners enacted an ordinance dissolving a fire protection district. Gaudin and others brought suit alleging the dissolution ordinance was void because no petition to dissolve the district or repeal the ordinance establishing the district had been filed. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Commissioners, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Gaudin v. Austin, 921 N.E.2d 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is the Feb. 25, 2010 COA decision in the Brown County fire district case. See this ILB entry from Oct. 22, 2010. For background, see this Jan. 10, 2009 entry discussing the requested recusal of CJ Shepard because of his participation as co-chair of the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform. See also this entry from Nov. 1st quoting a story by Laura Lane of the Bloomington Herald-Times.
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 11/8/10):
Monday, November 8th
- 1:30 PM - Robert Segar v. State of Indiana (49A02-1003-CR-269) - Robert Segar was convicted, following a bench trial, of possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. On appeal, Segar argues the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence obtained following an investigatory stop and a pat down search that Segar contends were unlawful. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges May, Robb and Vaidik. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 11/15/10):
Next Monday, November 15th
- 1:00 PM - Steve Weinreb & Timber Ridge, LLC v. TR Developers, LLC & National Consumer Bank (49A05-1003-CT-152) - This case involves a default judgment entered against Appellant Weinreb and Timber Ridge, LLC. National Consumer Bank obtained a judgment of foreclosure against Timber Ridge, LLC in the amount of nearly $4,000,000 after Timber Ridge defaulted on its loan payments. Weinreb, who had executed a loan guarantee, was found jointly and severally liable with Timber Ridge, LLC for "at least" $2,027,888.50 under his loan guarantee. National Consumer Bank later assigned its judgment to TR Developers. After the default judgment was entered, Timber Ridge, LLC and Weinreb filed a motion for relief for judgment seeking a stay of foreclosure because Weinreb alleged that he did not sign the loan guarantee. The trial court denied the motion, and Weinreb did not appeal the denial of this, his first Trial Rule 60(B) motion. After National Consumer Bank assigned its judgment to TR Developers, Weinreb and Timber Ridge, LLC filed a second motion for relief from judgment, through new counsel. Again, Weinreb argued that the signature on the loan guarantee had been forged. The trial court denied this motion, and Weinreb appeals from that denial arguing that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his second Trial Rule 60(B) motion. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Baker, Judges Najam and Mathias. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next Tuesday, November 16th
- 1:20 PM - Cavin E. Pogue vs. State of Indiana (49A02-1001-CR-37) - Appellant/Defendant Cavin Pogue appeals his convictions for Class A misdemeanor Criminal Trespass and Class A misdemeanor Resisting Law Enforcement. Specifically, Pogue challenges whether the evidence presented during trial is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he lacked a contractual interest in the property in question and that he forcibly resisted, obstructed, or interfered with the lawful execution of the arresting officer's official duties. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Vaidik, Barnes and Bradford. [Where: Lawrence North High School, Indianapolis, Indiana]
ONLY those Court of Appeals oral arguments presented in the Supreme or Court of Appeals Courtrooms will be accessible via videocast.
The past COA webcasts which have been webcast are accessible here.
NOTE: For a printable version of this list of upcoming oral arguments, click on the date in the next line. Then select "Print" from your browser.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 8, 2010 08:18 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments