« Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court decides two today | Main | Courts - "How an Ohio judge’s ruling threatens journalists’ ability to cover the court system" »

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 opinion(s) today (and 4 NFP memorandum decision(s))

For publication opinions today (4):

In Elaine Chenore v. Robert Plantz, a 6-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:

Elaine Chenore (“Chenore”) appeals, following the deemed denial of a motion to correct error challenging the dismissal of her attorney malpractice action against Robert Plantz (“Plantz”). She presents the sole issue of whether the trial court improperly dismissed the claim pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6). We reverse. * * *

Chenore’s complaint asserted facts in avoidance of the statute of limitation. To the extent that Plantz has argued that Chenore should have discovered her harm earlier, this presents a factual dispute not apparent on the face of Chenore’s complaint. “A complaint is sufficient and should not be dismissed so long as it states any set of allegations, no matter how unartfully pleaded, upon which the plaintiff could be granted relief.” Graves v. Kovacs, 990 N.E.2d 972, 976 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

Accordingly, we agree with Chenore that her complaint was improperly dismissed pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(6).

In Jeffrey B. Morgan and Wendi S. Morgan v. Andrew White and Holly White , a 14-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
Jeffrey B. Morgan and Wendi S. Morgan (collectively, the “Morgans”) appeal the trial court’s findings of fact, conclusions and judgment in favor of Andrew White and Holly White (collectively, the “Whites”) on the Whites’ counterclaim for adverse possession and quiet title. The Morgans raise one issue which we revise and restate as whether the court’s judgment is clearly erroneous. We affirm.
In Rachel Staggs v. Corena Buxbaum , a 21-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
Rachel Staggs appeals the trial court’s order awarding treble damages, actual costs, and attorney fees pursuant to the Crime Victim Relief Act (“CVRA”) in favor of Corena Buxbaum. Staggs raises two issues which we revise and restate as:
I. Whether the trial court applied the wrong standard in awarding exemplary damages under the CVRA; and
II. Whether the court’s award of exemplary damages is clearly erroneous.
We affirm.
In Timothy J. Jimerson v. State of Indiana , a 13-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:
Timothy Jimerson (“Jimerson”) appeals his conviction for Voluntary Manslaughter, a Class A felony. He presents the sole issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in restricting the testimony of an expert witness. We affirm. * * *

The case law appears to present three categories of expert testimony regarding false or coerced confessions: a general description of techniques and goals; highlighting of practices used in a particular interview; and the impact of techniques on a particular confession. The parties agree that general testimony is permissible and that allowing testimony on the latter category would invade the province of the jury. They disagree, in light of the relevant precedent, as to admissibility of evidence falling within the second category. * * *

Together with extensive background testimony from Dr. Leo, the jury was provided with Jimerson’s statement in audio, video, and written form. Moreover, Jimerson testified and explained his subjective view, that is, he had said certain things he later recanted because he was “very scared.” (Tr. at 1163.) He testified that he had been led into scenarios, told that his DNA was all over Spicer’s body and house, and encouraged to demonstrate that he was not a monster. As such, the jury had been given adequate information to apply its common knowledge and experience. Where a jury is able to apply concepts without further assistance, highlighting individual exchanges or vouching for the truth or falsity of particular evidence is invasive.

Jimerson has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in the restriction of expert testimony.

NFP civil decisions today (3):

Nicholaus Griesemer and Alexander Griesemer, Minor Children, By Next Friend, Pamela Griesemer v. Brian Griesemer (mem. dec.)

In the Matter of: J.L. and L.L., Children in Need of Services, Q.L. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Connie Duty, Coleen Grayson, and Frank Riffert v. The Estate of Hazel A. Geiselman, et al. (mem. dec.)

NFP criminal decisions today (1):

Stacy Robey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 28, 2016 05:09 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions