« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides one Indiana case today | Main | Law - "States Cleared for Online Bets" »

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 17 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Michael Collier v. State of Indiana, an 8-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:

Here, we are reminded of the old adage that it is not only what you say but how you say it. This is precisely why we grant trial courts the responsibility to determine whether a defendant has made his or her case in accordance with Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), which prohibits the exercise of racially discriminatory peremptory challenges. In this case, although the trial court determined that the Batson challenge was met, the defendant’s motion was denied because there was a “fair enough jury” to proceed. Under these circumstances, we must conclude that the conviction must be set aside.

Appellant-defendant Michael Collier appeals his conviction for Resisting Law Enforcement, a class D felony. Specifically, Collier argues that his conviction must be reversed because the trial court erred when it found that Collier had satisfied the Batson requirements but determined that the case should proceed to trial. Collier maintains that once the trial court determines that purposeful discrimination has been established, Batson requires either the peremptory strikes should be denied or a mistrial should be declared. Moreover, Collier claims that he did satisfy the requirements of Batson in light of the deputy prosecutor’s “tainted race-neutral reasons” to explain his use of peremptory strikes to remove African-Americans from the venire. Concluding that the trial court erred in denying Collier’s request for a mistrial pursuant to Batson, we reverse Collier’s conviction and remand for a new trial.

In Kimberly Heaton v. State of Indiana , a 7-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:
Kimberly Heaton appeals the revocation of her probation and the trial court’s order that she serve eighteen months of her previously-suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction. She contends that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the eighteen-month sentence by both using the incorrect legal standard to determine if she had committed another offense and by using rules that were vague as to what constitutes a change of address. We hold that the terms of probation regarding Heaton’s address were not vague, but that the trial court did abuse its discretion by using the incorrect legal standard in determining if Heaton committed another offense. We therefore reverse and remand to the trial court to use the correct legal standard to determine whether Heaton violated her probation by committing a new offense and resentence her in light of the new findings.
NFP civil opinions today (3):

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.W.; N.W. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

The Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.H.H. & A.M.H., and Carrie Crawford v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

Walter Angermeier and Wolflin, LLC v. Schultheis Insurance Agency Inc. and William Thompson, Agent (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (14):

Adrian Collins v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Terrence Terren Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Douglas L. Hayden v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Sheila Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Kevin Backus v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Todd Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)

D.E. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

A.T. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Allison Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Kevin Hounshell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Larry A. Rowe, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Joshua Baker v. Robert Brown (NFP)

John T. Hamilton v. State of Indiana (NFP)

John R. Crawford v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 28, 2011 01:09 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions