Monday, August 19, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 8/19/13):
Thursday, August 22nd
- 9:00 AM - Danielle Kelly v. State of Indiana (30S01-1303-CR-220) - Police were informed by a Fortville resident that Kelly had made arrangements for a drug transaction to take place at her home. When Kelly and the person driving Kelly’s car arrived at the home, police officers took them into custody. Cocaine was discovered during a search of the vehicle. The Hancock Circuit Court denied Kelly’s motion to suppress the cocaine. The Court of Appeals affirmed on interlocutory appeal. Kelly v. State, No. 30A01-1112-CR-584 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2012) (NFP mem. dec.), reh’g granted (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2013) (NFP mem. dec.), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
- 9:45 AM - Michael Inman v. State of Indiana (49S00-1207-LW-376) - Inman was found guilty by a jury of the 2010 murder, felony murder, and robbery of a Fountain Square jewelry store owner. Inman was sentenced by the Marion Superior Court to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In this direct appeal, Inman asserts that Indiana Code section 35-50-2-9(l) is unconstitutional because it does not require the weighing of aggravators and mitigators be done “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and he raises issues related to the admission of evidence, the use of an exhibit, an instruction on felony murder, and the sentence.
- 10:30 AM - Demetrius Walker v. State of Indiana (49A02-1205-CR-380) - Walker was fighting with another man. Police repeatedly told the men to lie on the ground and stop fighting. When they did not do so, an officer said that if they did not lie flat on the ground immediately, they would both be tased. One man immediately dropped to the ground. Walker, with fists still clenched, stared at the officer for a second and then began to walk toward him. Two or three times, the officer told Walker to get on the ground. Walker did not obey and continued to approach. The officer deployed his taser. Following a bench trial in the Marion Superior Court, Walker was convicted of resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor. The Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and affirmed in Walker v. State, 984 N.E.2d 642 (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2013). Walker has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This COA opinion, originally issued as NFP on 1/30/2013, was changed to FP on 3/4/2013.
- No arguments currently scheduled.
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 8/19/13):
Tuesday, August 20th
- 10:00 AM - David M. Green v. State of Indiana ( 45A03-1210-PC-418) Appellant appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In that petition and on appeal, Appellant claims his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel did not object to the empaneling of an anonymous jury for Appellant’s murder trial. Pursuant to Lake Superior Court policy at the time, trials were to be conducted in front of anonymous juries to address ongoing juror safety concerns. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, May, and Mathias. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 8/26/13):
Tuesday, August 27th
- 11:00 AM - Katherine Chaffins, et al, vs. Clint Kauffman, M.D., et al (66A04-1302-CT-85) Katherine Chaffins and her husband appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Clint Kauffman; his practice, Family and Women’s Health Services; and Pulaski County Memorial Hospital. Dr. Kauffman performed a routine colonoscopy on Katherine, immediately after which Katherine complained to the hospital staff of intense abdominal pain. Katherine was presumed to have common gas pain, no further inquiry was made, and she was discharged from the hospital after twenty-two minutes of recovery. Twelve hours later, Katherine’s pain had worsened, and she returned to the hospital, where an X-ray revealed that her colon had been perforated during the procedure.
The Chaffinses filed a negligence claim against the three defendants, alleging their decision to discharge Katherine without inquiring into the source of her pain fell below a reasonable standard of care associated with post-colonoscopy treatment. A medical malpractice review panel found that the defendants were not negligent, and the Pulaski Superior Court subsequently granted summary judgment in their favor. On appeal, the Chaffinses argue that they presented sufficient evidence of disputed material fact with regard to the standard of care. The Chaffinses’ expert witness testified that a perforated colon must be considered, and an X-ray must be performed, when a patient complains of severe abdominal pain following a colonoscopy. This testimony, the Chaffinses claim, was in direct conflict with the medical malpractice review panel’s findings on the issue. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Bradford, and Brown. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 1:30 PM - Claire's Boutiques, Inc., vs. Brownsburg Station Partners (32A01-1209-CC-438) Following a bench trial in this breach of contract case, Claire’s Boutiques, Inc., a tenant of a strip mall owned by Brownsburg Station Partners, LLC, appeals the denial of its cross-motion for summary judgment and the entry of final judgment in favor Brownsburg regarding the interpretation of the operating co-tenancy provision in its retail lease. Brownsburg cross-appeals, asserting that the trial court erred when it denied Brownsburg’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding construction of the operating co-tenancy provision and that the court erred when it denied Brownsburg’s request for consequential damages at trial. The main issues on appeal are the construction of the operating co-tenancy provision in the lease and whether the tenant’s complete removal from the leased premises without notice constitutes termination of the lease by Claire’s or, instead, abandonment of the leased premises in default of the lease. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, Bailey, and Barnes. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 1:30 PM - John S. Paniaguas, et al, vs. Endor, Inc., et al (45A03-1205-PL-244) This case arises from a dispute between Appellant homeowners, who own homes in Unit 1 of a subdivision located in Crown Point, Indiana that were built by an initial developer, and subsequent Appellee homeowners, who purchased homes in the same subdivision, some of which were in Unit 1 and some of which were in Unit 2, that were built by a second developer. Appellant homeowners alleged that Appellee homeowners’ homes were in violation of the subdivision’s restrictive covenants and requested injunctive relief and damages. After a bench trial, the trial court determined that Appellee homeowners’ homes were in compliance with the restrictive covenants, and Appellant homeowners now appeal, arguing that: (1) the trial court erred in determining that they lacked standing to enforce the restrictive covenants against certain homeowners in Unit 2 of the subdivision based on the court’s finding that the restrictive covenants only applied to Unit 1 of the subdivision; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting minutes of the Architectural Control Committee under the business records exception to the hearsay rule; (3) the evidence presented failed to support the trial court’s finding that all of the homes built by the second developer complied with the restrictive covenants; and (4) the trial court’s findings were deficient under Indiana Trial Rule 52. Appellee homeowners cross-appeal, contending that the trial court erred in not granting them attorney fees because Appellant homeowners’ claims were frivolous. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Kirsch, Vaidik, and Pyle. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
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 August 19, 2013 07:08 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments