« Ind. Courts - "U.S. Senator Coats Calls for Commission to Fill Indiana Judicial Vacancies" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court suspends Evansville attorney for 240 days, without automatic reinstatement »
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 opinion(s) today (and 13 NFP memorandum decisions)
For publication opinions today (2):
In Latoyia Smith v. State of Indiana , a 13-page opinion, Judge Riley concludes:
In light of the above factors and our deference to the fact-finder in sufficiency cases, the trial court was entitled to conclude that Smith’s behavior was excessive, unreasonable, and outside the bounds of appropriate parental discipline, and the mere fact that it was imposed by an out-of-control parent upon her disobedient thirteen-year-old does not shield Smith from criminal liability. See Mitchell, 813 N.E.2d at 427. Under the circumstances, we conclude that Smith committed a battery not protected by the parental privilege.In D.F. v. State of Indiana , a 7-page opinion, Judge May writes:
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the State produced sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith committed battery.
D.F. appeals his adjudication as a delinquent. He asserts the court erred by admitting the handgun found inside his sweatshirt because the search of his sweatshirt violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. * * *NFP civil decisions today (4):
Finding no error in the admission of the handgun under either the Fourth Amendment or Article 1, Section 11, we affirm D.F.’s adjudication as a delinquent.
NFP criminal decisions today (9):
In State of Indiana v. M.P. (mem. dec.), a 12-page opinion, Judge Kirsch writes:
In a delinquency proceeding against M.P., a witness essential to the State’s case failed to appear at two scheduled depositions. The juvenile court granted M.P.’s request to exclude the witness’s testimony, and, thereafter, the juvenile court granted the State’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The State now appeals, asserting the following restated issue: whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when, as a discovery sanction, it excluded the witness’s testimony. We affirm.Richard A. Gill v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 13, 2015 11:25 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions