Monday, June 17, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 6/17/13):
Thursday, June 20th
- 9:00 AM - American Cold Storage v. City of Boonville (87S01-1303-PL-157) - Landowners who oppose annexation by the City filed a remonstrance petition, but the Warrick Superior Court dismissed a petition after ruling that an inadequate number of landowners in the annexed territory signed the petition. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding “the trial court erred, insofar as it counted the separate parcels that were acquired by the State to build State Road 62 rather than counting State Road 62 as a single parcel under the Remonstrance Statute.” American Cold Storage v. City of Boonville, 977 N.E.2d 19, 25 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is a 2-1 Oct. 9, 2012 opinion (2nd case) re the remonstrance statute and State-owned property.
- 9:45 AM - Demetriese Gunn v. State of Indiana (49A02-1202-CR-152) - Following a jury trial, Gunn was convicted of neglect of a dependent. The verdict form listed it as a Class D felony rather than the Class C felony with which Gunn had been charged. Apparently based on the responses of the attorneys present, the Marion Superior Court determined this was a clerical error and corrected the form to show a Class C felony. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Demetriese Gunn v. State, No. 49A02-1202-Cr-152 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2012) (NFP mem. dec.), trans. pending. Gunn has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is an Oct. 30, 2012 NFP opinion.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 6/24/13):
Thursday, June 27th
- 9:00 AM - Matter of Adoption of C.B.M. (37S03-1303-AD-159) - The Jasper Superior Court denied a petition to set aside an adoption decree filed by a birth mother who had successfully appealed a prior order terminating her parental rights. The Court of Appeals reversed. Matter of Adoption of C.B.M., 979 N.E.2d 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is a Nov. 30, 2012 opinion, where a concurring opinion begins:
I agree with the majority that Birth Mother’s due-process rights were violated, she should have received notice of the adoption proceedings, and the adoption decree must be set aside. I also agree with the majority’s conclusion that the adoption statutes at issue are constitutional. My reasoning, however, is different. I conclude that the adoption statutes require notice of adoption proceedings to birth parents whose rights have been terminated but who have not exhausted their appeals."
- 9:45 AM - Richard Eric Johnson v. Gillian Wheeler Johnson (49S05-1303-DR-199) - The Marion Superior Court modified Father's child support obligation. The calculation of support included crediting Father for social security retirement benefits paid to the children and credited Mother for health insurance premiums paid for the children. The court also determined the amount of uninsured healthcare expenses Father owes Mother, declined Father's request to modify the parties' prior agreement on the payment of college expenses, and modified Father's parenting time. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Johnson v. Johnson, No. 49A05-1202-DR-81 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec 4, 2012) (NFP mem. dec.), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is an Dec. 4, 2012 NFP opinion. that concluded:
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in its order regarding Father’s prior uninsured health care expense obligation, parenting time, and college expenses. The trial court did abuse its discretion in calculating Mother’s health insurance premium credit, its order regarding parenting time transportation expenses, and in failing to address extracurricular expenses. Moreover, the trial court did not appropriately figure the credit to which Father is entitled toward his child support obligation because of Social Security retirement benefits the children receive. Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for the trial court to recalculate child support and amend its order accordingly.
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 6/17/13):
Tuesday, June 18th
- 11:00 AM - State v. Robert Owens (49A02-1210-CR-817) In this interlocutory appeal, the State appeals from the trial court’s grant of Robert Owens’s motion to suppress evidence obtained following a police detention. Owens has been charged with Class A felony dealing in cocaine, Class A felony cocaine possession, two counts of Class D felony battery on a law enforcement officer, two counts of Class D felony resisting law enforcement, and Class D felony obstruction of justice. The State argues that, even if the initial detention was illegal, Owens’s subsequent criminal actions removed any taint, the police actions were reasonable under Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution, and evidence regarding Owens’s resisting law enforcement and battery on police officer charges would be admissible in any event.
The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Bradford, and Brown.
[Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 1:30 PM - Winston K. Wood v. State of Indiana (53A05-1208-CR-423) Winston K. Wood appeals his convictions for one count of leaving the scene of a boating accident resulting in serious bodily injury to a person, a Class D felony, and two counts of leaving the scene of a boating accident resulting in the death of a person, each as a Class C felony. On appeal, Wood raises the following issues: (1) whether the State presented sufficient evidence that Wood failed to comply with the duties required of a boater in an accident; (2) whether Indiana Code section 14-15-4-1 (pertaining to a boater’s duty during an accident) is unconstitutionally vague; (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Wood’s motion for discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C); and (4) whether Wood’s convictions and sentence violate principles of double jeopardy.
The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Kirsch, May, and Mathias.
[Where: Hoosier Boys State, Trine University,
- 2:00 PM - Robert E. Redington v. State of Indiana (53A01-1210-CR-461) Robert Redington was approached by members of the Bloomington Police Department while viewing a bar with a range finder from the third floor of a parking garage. Redington informed the police that he was in possession of a firearm, and the police located two loaded handguns in his pockets. Redington also was in possession of a loaded shotgun which was located in the trunk of his vehicle. Redington made statements to the police officers regarding the investigation of Lauren Spierer’s disappearance, and the police asked him if he would be willing to come to the police station for an interview, and Redington complied. Based upon Redington’s interactions with police, as well as the parking enforcement officer who alerted the police to his presence, Redington was transported to the IU Health Center in Bloomington for a mental evaluation. The police also searched Redington’s home and seized forty-eight firearms. The State filed a petition for a hearing to retain Redington’s seized firearms pursuant to Ind. Code Section 37-47-14 et seq., and, following the hearing, the court ordered that Bloomington Police retain the firearms. On appeal, Redington challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented to retain his firearms, asserts that Ind. Code Section 37-47-14 et seq. is unconstitutional on grounds that it, as applied, violates Article 1, Section 32 as well as Article 1, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution, and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and that Ind. Code § 35-47-14-1(a)(2), as applied, is unconstitutional because it is void for vagueness. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Bradford, and Brown. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Tuesday, June 25th
- 1:30 PM - Billy L. Musgrave, Jr., and Kim A. Musgrave vs. Aluminum Company of America, et al ( 87A04-1205-CT-276) Bil and Kim Musgrave filed suit against The Aluminum Company of America, Inc. and a subsidiary (“Alcoa”) alleging damages from their exposure to toxic chemicals Alcoa had dumped in Warrick County. Following a three-week trial, a jury returned a general verdict in favor of Alcoa. The Musgraves appeal and assert the following: (1) that their complaint is not barred by Indiana’s two-year statute of limitations for tort actions; (2) that the trial court erroneously dismissed their claims against Alcoa arising from Bil’s alleged occupational exposure; and (3) that the trial court erroneously dismissed their claims for emotional distress under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6). The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, Bailey, and Barnes. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 2:30 PM - Eugene Hill vs. State of Indiana (49A02-1210-CR-797) Eugene Hill was convicted of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy and was ordered to serve a one-year sentence, which was suspended to probation. Approximately two months after he was sentenced, Hill violated his probation. After Hill admitted to the violations, the Marion Superior Court revoked his probation and ordered Hill to serve 180 days in the Marion County Jail, rather than in home detention as requested by Hill. On appeal, Hill argues the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve his sentence in the Marion County Jail. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Mathias, Barnes, and Crone. [Where: Trine University Angola, 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 June 17, 2013 07:56 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments