« Ind. Courts - "Another federal judge sought again" | Main | Ind. Law - More on: "House to consider gay marriage amendment" »
Monday, March 19, 2007
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 4 NFP)
For publication opinions today (3):
State of Indiana v. Robert M. Foy - "Pursuant to App. R. 14(B)(1)(a), a party generally must bring a motion requesting certification of an interlocutory order within thirty days of the date of the interlocutory order unless, for good cause, the trial court permits a belated motion. In the event the trial court grants a belated motion and certifies the appeal, it “shall make a finding that the certification is based on a showing of good cause, and shall set forth the basis for that finding.” App. R. 14(B)(1)(a). We have not previously defined “good cause” within the meaning of App. R. 14(B). * * * [Here] we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion when it found good cause to permit the State’s belated motion and certified the interlocutory appeal."
"Foy contends the trial court erred when it found the search warrant was supported by probable cause. * * * McCord’s probable cause affidavit is based largely on information provided to him by the 911 dispatcher, other officers, and emergency and ambulance personnel. The substantial majority of the information contained in McCord’s affidavit, therefore, may be fairly characterized as hearsay. * * * [T]he hearsay information in this case came from law enforcement officers, emergency and medical professionals, and someone in the alleged victim’s home who called 911 seeking medical help rather than to report criminal activity. The information provided a sufficient basis of fact to permit a reasonably prudent person to believe a search of the Foys’ residence would uncover evidence of a crime. Esquerdo v. State, 640 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 1994). Based upon the totality of the evidence, there was a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed."
"The State contends the trial court erred in granting Foy’s motion to suppress because, it asserts, the search warrant was sufficiently particular. [The warrant authorized a search for trace evidence. The Court notes that there are authorities that refute defendant's assertion that the phrase “trace evidence” imposes no “limitation as to the type of evidence referred to and provides links to the FBI trace evidence unit and the state police crime lab. After referencing other states and federal decisions, the court concludes] The trial court, therefore, erred by granting Foy’s motion to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant."
Bruce Antonio Howard v. State of Indiana - "Perhaps creating the most significant concern regarding the legality of this search was the point that Officer Vantlin testified that he had previously told Howard he was going to search him every time he saw him. These circumstances did not warrant a pat-down search incident to a Terry stop. We conclude that the seizure of Howard’s person and thereby his possessions was illegal. See Sanchez v. State, 803 N.E.2d 215, 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S 471, 485 (1963) (the exclusionary rule, also known as the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, bars from trial physical, tangible materials obtained during or as a direct result of an unlawful invasion)). As such, the trial court should have suppressed the evidence. Reversed."
Timothy Golden v. State of Indiana - "Appellant-defendant Timothy Golden appeals the aggregate twenty-year sentence that was imposed following his guilty plea to Sexual Misconduct with a Minor,1 a class B felony, and to being a Repeat Sex Offender.2 Specifically, Golden claims that the sentence was inappropriate because the trial court erroneously rejected a proffered mitigating factor and incorrectly found the existence of aggravating circumstances. Thus, Golden maintains that the trial court improperly balanced the relevant mitigating and aggravating circumstances when deciding what sentence to impose. Moreover, Golden contends that the sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court."
NFP civil opinions today (1):
In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationships of T.W., J.W., and K.W.; Monique Wilson v. Marion County Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP) - "Appellant-respondent Monique Wilson appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor children, T.W., J.W., and K.W. Specifically, Wilson argues that there is insufficient evidence supporting the juvenile court’s determination to terminate her parental rights. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court."
NFP criminal opinions today (3):
Felicia D. Gordon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Darrell W. Mitchell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Paul Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 19, 2007 12:03 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions