Thursday, March 13, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 9 NFP)
For publication opinions today (2):
In Donald R. Walker, D.D.S. v. State Board of Dentistry , a 12-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:
Donald Walker, D.D.S., appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for judicial review of a decision by the State Board of Dentistry (“the Board”). We affirm.In J.L. v. State of Indiana , 23-page opinion with a separate concurring opinion, Judge Brown writes:
Dr. Walker raises two issues, which we restate as: I. whether the Board properly found that Dr. Walker violated Indiana Code Section 25-1-9-4(a)(3) by failing to provide continual and direct supervision to Patient A; and II. whether the Board properly found that Dr. Walker violated Indiana Code Section 25-1-9-4(a)(4)(B) by using the “hand over mouth” technique on Patient A. * * *
We conclude that the Board properly found that Dr. Walker violated 828 IAC 3-1-6.5(c)(10) by knowingly failing to provide “continual and direct supervision by a person trained in basic cardiac life support” to a recovering patient. * * *
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the hand over mouth technique is not current professional theory or practice for use on adult patients. Consequently, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Dr. Walker violated Indiana Code Section 25-1-9-4(a)(4)(B) by using the “hand over mouth” technique on Patient A.
Conclusion. The trial court properly denied Dr. Walker’s petition for judicial review regarding the Board’s findings and conclusions thereon. We affirm.
J.L. appeals the juvenile court’s true finding that he committed a delinquent act, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute child molesting, a class C felony. J.L. raises two issues, which we revise and restate as: I. Whether the court abused its discretion in admitting J.L.’s statement to police; and II. Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his adjudication as delinquent. We affirm. * * *NFP civil opinions today (4):
We conclude that although J.L.’s waiver of his opportunity for a meaningful consultation was not knowingly and voluntarily made, that the testimony of F.R. was sufficiently detailed and probative which rendered the videotaped confession relatively unimportant, and that accordingly the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. * * *
The next issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain J.L.’s adjudication as a delinquent. When the State seeks to have a juvenile adjudicated as a delinquent for committing an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, the State must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. * * *
Under these circumstances, we conclude that the State presented evidence of a probative nature from which a reasonable trier of fact could find that J.L. committed an act that would constitute child molesting as a class C felony if committed by an adult.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court’s true finding that J.L. committed a delinquent act, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute child molesting, a class C felony.
ROBB, J., concurs.
BARNES, J., concurs in result with separate opinion. [which begins, at p. 22] I concur in result. Although my colleagues affirm the adjudication of delinquency, I differ with them as to the route they took to get there. I believe that the meaningful opportunity to confer was extended, considered, and knowingly and voluntarily waived as contemplated by Indiana Code Section 31-32-5-2.
NFP criminal opinions today (5):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 13, 2014 02:34 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions