« Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court also issues another opinion today | Main | Ind. Courts - Still more on: Judge seals records in French Lick casino dispute without hearing [Updated] »
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues three today
In Anthony D. Shouse v. State of Indiana, an 18-page opinion, Judge Vaidik's summary reads:
Anthony Shouse (“Shouse”) appeals his convictions for auto theft and two counts of resisting law enforcement arising from his actions in stealing a truck and then leading several law enforcement agencies on a 100-mile-per-hour chase. Shouse is not entitled to a new trial based on the deputy prosecutor’s conduct toward an attorney of a defense witness, which resulted in the witness invoking the Fifth Amendment and refusing to testify at trial. Any error is harmless because of the overwhelming evidence of Shouse’s guilt. Shouse was not entitled to an instruction on conversion as a lesser-included offense of auto theft because there is no serious evidentiary dispute that Shouse acted with intent to deprive the victim of the truck’s value or use. Shouse’s two convictions for resisting law enforcement do not violate federal double jeopardy principles because one conviction is for fleeing and the other is for forcibly resisting or interfering, which are different species of resisting law enforcement. Although the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury during the habitual offender phase of trial that it is the judge of both the law and the facts, the error is not reversible. Finally, in light of the nature of the offenses and Shouse’s extensive criminal history, his eight and one-half year sentence is not inappropriate. We therefore affirm the trial court in all respects.Tina Marie Dewbrew v. Herbert A. Dewbrew is a 24-page opinion (dissent beginning on p. 18) in which the majority of the panel, in an opinion Judge Riley, finds that the trial court erred in its refusal to set aside a property settlement and custody agreement, and reverses and remands, with instructions. Judge Vaidik dissents.
In First Student, Inc. & Sharon Byrd v. Estate of Matthew Scott Meece, by Le Ann Pearl as Personal Representative, a 16-page opinion, Judge Sullivan writes:
Appellants-Defendants, First Student, Inc. and Sharon Byrd, challenge the trial court’s denial of their motion for partial summary judgment in the wrongful death claim filed against them by Le Ann Pearl as the personal representative of the Estate of Matthew Scott Meece. * * *Regardless of its caption, the minor’s compromise action filed in the Decatur Circuit Court was for our purposes a “paternity” action which was filed within the applicable time limits of the intestacy statutes, i.e. within eleven months after Meece’s death. As such, M.P. may properly be considered as a dependent child in the wrongful death action, and the trial court correctly denied the Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 20, 2006 11:54 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions