« Courts - "Courts - Yet more on: Lobbyist linked to Abramoff quits Indianapolis firm" | Main | Law - "Stingray Tracking Devices: Who's Got Them?" »

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 15 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

In Lesley Farley Pitcavage v. Joel Michael Pitcavage , a 37-page opinion, Judge Riley concludes:

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody of the Child to Joel. We further conclude that the trial court neither abused its discretion in its valuation of the mortgage debt, engagement ring, and golf clubs, nor in its division of debts and award of fees relating to home repairs, custody evaluations, tax return preparation, and car insurance premiums. We do conclude, however, that the trial court abused its discretion in its valuation of Leslie’s 401(k) account. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
In Billy Young v. State of Indiana, a 9-page opinion, Judge Robb writes:
Billy Young appeals his conviction for attempted aggravated battery, raising the following issues for our review: (1) whether it was error to enter a conviction against Young of attempted aggravated battery as a lesser included offense of murder; and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support Young’s conviction. Concluding the charging information did not give Young sufficient notice of the crime of which he was convicted, we reverse.
In Gabriel McQuay v. State of Indiana, a 9-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:
Gabriel McQuay appeals his convictions for criminal confinement, as a Class D felony, and battery, as a Class A misdemeanor, following a bench trial. McQuay raises a single issue for our review, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed a police officer to testify to the victim’s out-of-court statements made to the officer. We affirm. * * *

Under an objective analysis, the circumstances of the encounter as well as the statements and actions of R.S. and Officer Williams indicate that the primary purpose of the interrogation was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. As such, R.S.’s identification of herself and McQuay were not testimonial statements. The Confrontation Clause did not bar their admission at McQuay’s trial.

NFP civil opinions today (3):

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of B.P.V. & B.L.V. (Minor Children) and H.P. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

In the Matter of the Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of J.C.G. (Minor Child), and L.A.M. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: G.M. (Minor Child), and R.M. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (12):

Bradley S. Stock v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Shelton B. Stephens v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Tony Lamar Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Nicholas M. Weatherford v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Darris Blake Galloway v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Vance Gene Bridgemon v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Franklin E. Logan v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Krasimir Pavlov v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Shawkan Darden v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Nita Joyce Trott v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Kevin R. Simmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Tracy L. Oaks v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 12, 2014 01:34 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions