« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit affrims SD Ind.'s 2005 United States Grand Prix race ruling | Main | Ind. Decisions - Transfer list for week ending May 25, 2007 »

Friday, May 25, 2007

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 8 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

Jovan Stewart v. State of Indiana - "There is sufficient evidence to support Stewart’s convictions for attempted battery, criminal recklessness, and possession of a handgun without a license, but there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for dangerous possession of a firearm by a child. Additionally, his conviction for criminal recklessness must be vacated because of double jeopardy concerns. His six-year sentence for attempted battery is appropriate. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for the trial court to vacate Stewart’s convictions for criminal recklessness and dangerous possession of a firearm by a child."

Michael Rutherford v. State of Indiana - "There is sufficient evidence to support Rutherford’s convictions. However, his conviction for criminal recklessness must be vacated because of double jeopardy concerns. His six-year sentence for attempted battery is appropriate. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for the trial court to vacate the criminal recklessness conviction and to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect Rutherford’s conviction for attempted battery, not attempted murder."

In Albert Boyd v. State of Indiana , a 6-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:

Case Summary. Albert Boyd appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery. We affirm.

Issue. Boyd raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court properly admitted a statement made by the victim, Ruth Boyd, Boyd’s deceased wife.

Facts. On April 20, 2005, Boyd and Ruth were involved in a physical alteration. Boyd hit Ruth on her arms, back, and face. On April 23, 2005, Ruth reported the incident to police and gave them a statement describing the incident. On May 5, 2005, the State charged Boyd with Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury. A trial was scheduled for March 17, 2006. However, on January 31, 2006, Boyd murdered Ruth, and the battery trial was postponed. On August 9, 2006, a jury convicted Boyd of murder.

On December 12, 2006, a bench trial was held on the battery charge. Prior to the trial, a hearing was held regarding the admissibility of Ruth’s April 23, 2005 statement to the police concerning the battery. The trial court concluded that, by murdering Ruth, Boyd forfeited his right to confront Ruth as a witness against him and waived his right to object to the admission of her statement on hearsay grounds. The trial court then found Boyd guilty of Class A misdemeanor battery. Boyd now appeals. * * *

As the Crawford court recognized, however, the right to confront witnesses is not unlimited. * * *

Conclusion. Boyd’s wrongdoing forfeited his right to confront Ruth at trial as provided by the Sixth Amendment and the Indiana Rules of Evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Ruth’s statement in addition to other evidence of the battery. We affirm.

NFP civil opinions today (3):

Involuntary Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of T.W. and Tr.W., and Larry Wiseman v. Marion Co. Dept. of Child Services and Child Advocates (NFP) - "Larry Wiseman appeals the involuntary termination of his parental rights to T.W. and Tr.W. Specifically, Wiseman claims he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his attorney (1) failed to object to the incorrect notice of the final termination hearing, and (2) failed to consult with Wiseman prior to the hearing. We affirm."

David S. Moreland v. Joseph C. Krutzsch, T & L Marketing and U.S. Financial Life Ins. Co. (NFP) - "David S. Moreland appeals the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Joseph C. Krutzsch, T&L Marketing Corporation (T&L), and U.S. Financial Life Insurance Company (USFL) (collectively, the defendants) on his claims of breach of contract, fraud, and conversion. Of the several issues presented by Moreland, we find the following dispositive: 1. Are Moreland’s claims barred by their respective statutes of limitations? 2. Are the defendants entitled to summary judgment with respect to the merits of Moreland’s claim for breach of contract? We affirm."

In Dean E. Blanck v. Indiana Dept. of Correction (NFP), a 10-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:

Case Summary. Dean E. Blanck appeals judgments in two small claim court cases he brought against the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”). He challenges the trial court’s judgment in his favor for $15.36 in Miami Superior Court Cause Number 52D01-0504-SC-360 (“Case SC-360”), and the trial court’s judgment in favor of the DOC in LaPorte Superior Court Cause Number 46D03-0603-SC-345 (“Case SC-345”). We reverse and remand.

Issues. Blanck presents three issues for our review, which we restate as follows: I. Whether the trial courts in Case SC-360 and Case SC-345 erred by admitting the DOC’s unsworn affidavits and supporting exhibits; II. Whether the trial court in Case SC-360 erred by entering judgment in Blanck’s favor for only $15.36; and III. Whether the trial court in Case SC-345 erred by entering judgment in favor of the DOC. * * *

We hereby reverse the trial courts’ judgments in Case SC-360 and Case SC-345 and remand. We order the Miami Superior Court to enter judgment in Blanck’s favor regarding all the property shown in Blanck’s verified list of lost property. We order the LaPorte Superior Court to enter judgment in Blanck’s favor in Case SC-345. We order both courts to determine damages in light of these revised judgments.

NFP criminal opinions today (5):

Roy W. Winstead v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Barbara Holt v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Gordon Hancock v. State of Indiana (NFP)

D.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Eddie Mooney v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 25, 2007 12:35 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions