Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 10 NFP)
For publication opinions today (4):
In William R. Wallace v. State of Indiana , an 11-page opinion, Judge Bradford writes:
Appellant-Defendant William R. Wallace brings this interlocutory appeal, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss. Wallace argues that the dismissal of the Class D felony Voyeurism charge was warranted because the facts, as alleged, cannot constitute voyeurism. Concluding that the alleged facts, if proven to be true, could support a voyeurism conviction, we affirm the trial court’s order denying Wallace’s motion to dismiss. * * *ILB: Re the above, see also this ILB entry from Jan. 30 re the Supreme Court disciplinary action, In the Matter of William R. WALLACE.
In the instant matter, the alleged facts, if proven to be true at trial, can constitute voyeurism because Wallace recorded A.J. disrobing and engaging in a sexual encounter without her consent in a clandestine, surreptitious, prying, or secretive nature. * * *
[BARNES, Judge, concurring] * * * However, the voyeurism statute was drawn primarily to punish persons who peep into bathrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, and the like. * * *
The camera that Wallace set up, however, did peep. Although a camera by itself cannot commit a crime, the recording it made permitted Wallace to repeatedly view A.J. naked and engaging in sex with him. A.J. did not consent to being seen naked repeatedly by Wallace.
Nathan Anderson v. State of Indiana - "In sum, we affirm Anderson‟s conviction and sentence for murder. We reverse his convictions for burglary and abuse of a corpse and vacate those sentences. As noted earlier, the State may retry Anderson for those offenses if it so chooses."
Steven Nowling v. State of Indiana - "Accordingly, we conclude that, if Nowling’s continuing objection applied to Bowles’s testimony regarding Exhibit 4, Nowling waived his ability to challenge the admission of Exhibit 4 on appeal by stating that he had no objection.
"Based on the foregoing, we grant Nowling’s petition for rehearing for the limited purpose of clarifying our analysis and affirm our original opinion."
Christopher Stark v. State of Indiana - "In this interlocutory appeal, Christopher Stark appeals the denial of his motion to suppress a handgun. We affirm."
NFP civil opinions today (3):
NFP criminal opinions today (7):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 31, 2012 01:43 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions