« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit issues debt collection opinion | Main | Ind. Decisions - Two today from Supreme Court »
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 12 NFP)
For publication opinions today (3):
In T.D. v. State of Indiana , a 7-page opinion on rehearing, Judge Najam writes:
T.D. has filed a petition for rehearing asking that we reconsider our holding that T.D. waived review of her claim that the State presented insufficient evidence to support her juvenile delinquency adjudication. See In re T.D., Cause No. 49A02-0712-JV-1082 (Ind. Ct. App. July 9, 2008) (“In re T.D. I”). Simultaneously, T.D. files her petition for leave to supplement the appendix with the dispositional order entered in Cause Number 49D09-06111-JD-4161 (“Cause Number 4161”). Because of the unique circumstances in this case, as explained below, we grant both petitions and consider T.D.’s sufficiency claim on the merits. We reverse our prior decision. * * *In Robert Tiller v. State of Indiana , a 16-page opinion, Judge Friedlander writes:In sum, the record shows that T.D’s placement at the Academy is not a commitment to the Department of Correction. And the State did not present evidence to show that the Academy is a juvenile detention facility, a secure private facility, or a shelter care facility. As a result, the State did not meet its burden of showing that the Academy is one of the facilities “for custody of persons alleged or found to be delinquent children” as required by Indiana Code Section 35-41-1-18(a)(4). Thus, we grant T.D.’s petition for rehearing and reverse the adjudication finding T.D. to be delinquent for having committed the offense of escape, as a Class C felony. Reversed.
Following a jury trial, Robert Tiller was convicted of Attempted Murder, a class A felony, Confinement as a class B felony, and Escape as a class B felony. The trial court subsequently sentenced Tiller to an aggregate sentence of sixty-six years imprisonment. On appeal, Tiller presents three issues for our review:Kevin D. Burke v. Duke Bennett - see ILB entry here
1. Did the trial court properly instruct the jury on accomplice liability for a charge of attempted murder?
2. Did the trial court properly allow the victim’s deposition to be read into evidence when the victim failed to appear to testify during trial?
3. Is the evidence sufficient to sustain Tiller’s conviction for attempted murder?
We reverse and remand. * * *Considering Tiller’s testimony as to his involvement and his allegation that he removed himself from the situation when he learned that Cannon had been placed in the trunk of the car in conjunction with the State’s evidence that Tiller ordered James and Looney to tie Cannon up, handed James a gun, and retrieved the car in which James and Looney placed Cannon in the trunk, it is clear that Tiller’s intent was substantially at issue. We must therefore conclude, as did our Supreme Court in Hopkins, that the trial court’s instruction on accomplice liability constituted fundamental error in that it failed to adequately instruct the jury that it was required to find that Tiller possessed the specific intent to kill Cannon when he aided, supported, helped, or assisted his accomplices commit the crime of attempted murder.
NFP civil opinions today (3):
Michael E. Stagg, Jr. v. Michelle M. Stagg (NFP) - "We reverse and remand to the trial court for a determination of whether modification of custody of K.S. is in the child’s best interests. Additionally, if the trial court finds that it is, because the trial court’s order is silent regarding parenting time under the modified physical custody arrangement, we direct the court to articulate an appropriate parenting time schedule for the parties. Reversed and remanded."
Gary B. Plunkitt v. Finance Center Federal Credit Union (NFP) -
Dawn Frederick v. Jim Frederick (NFP) - " Finding that the trial court properly awarded her one-third of the value of these assets and that the trial court actually awarded her nearly 50% of the marital pot, we affirm."
NFP criminal opinions today (9):
Ashley Ray Lawrence v. State of Indiana (NFP)
John D. Kwiatkowski v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Mary E. Ooten v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Fred S. Mott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Daemen Sampson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Frederick M. Cooper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Lenn Ivy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Warren Ivy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Gar Terry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 13, 2008 01:18 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions