« Ind. Gov't. - "State government began laying off employees today in order to cut costs" | Main | Ind. Decisions - One case granted transfer Nov. 12th »
Friday, November 13, 2009
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 6 NFP)
For publication opinions today (2):
In Curtis Colvin v. State of Indiana , a 7-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:
Curtis Colvin appeals his conviction for Resisting Law Enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor, following a bench trial. He presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We reverse. * * *Brea Rice v. State of Indiana , a 16-page opinion, Judge Robb writes:One of the officers ordered Colvin to take his hands out of his pockets, but Colvin did not comply. Colvin refused to comply with any of the officers' commands, and the officers “physically had to place him on the ground and handcuff him.” * * *
The evidence does not support a reasonable inference that Colvin did more than passively resist the officers. * * * We hold that the evidence is insufficient to support Colvin's resisting law enforcement conviction.
Brea Rice was charged with possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor, and possession of methamphetamine, a Class D felony, after a search conducted in the course of executing an arrest warrant issued for receiving stolen property uncovered the drugs in her purse. Rice filed a motion to suppress, alleging there was no probable cause to support the issuance of the arrest warrant and the drugs, as fruits of an illegal arrest, should be suppressed. The trial court agreed the arrest warrant should not have been issued but found the police conduct was not “sufficiently deliberate [such] that exclusion can meaningfully deter it,” and therefore denied Rice's motion to suppress. Rice sought and received permission to pursue this interlocutory appeal, raising the sole issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in applying the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule and denying her motion to suppress. Concluding the trial court did abuse its discretion because Indiana's good faith exception does not apply under these circumstances, we reverse.NFP civil opinions today (3):
Rebecca S. McClure v. Anthem, Inc. (NFP) - "Rebecca McClure filed an application for adjustment of claim with the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana (the “Board”) against her employer, Anthem, Inc. (“Anthem”). A Single Hearing Judge denied her claim, concluding that McClure had not suffered any injury arising out of and in the course of her employment with Anthem. McClure petitioned the full Board, which affirmed the Single Hearing Judge’s decision. Due to McClure’s blatant disregard of the appellate rules, we do not reach the merits of her appeal. We dismiss."
James L. Lynn v. The Estate of Jon L. Lynn, et al. (NFP) - "James presents a single dispositive issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court erred when it found that a Family Settlement Agreement giving James a right of first refusal to buy certain real estate was unenforceable. We affirm."
NFP criminal opinions today (3):
State of Indiana v. Clay Crick and Jeffrey K. Watts (NFP) - "The State has failed to show that the trial court’s rulings on the motions to suppress were contrary to law. See State v. Washington, 898 N.E.2d 1200, 1203 (Ind. 2008), reh’g denied. Our original opinion is affirmed in its entirety."
D.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
William E. Riley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 13, 2009 11:11 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions