Julie Marie Bojrab v. George David Bojrab (6/28/04 IndSCt) [Family Law]
Dickson, Justice
In this appeal following a dissolution of the marriage, we hold (1) that a trial court may not order a prospective custody modification upon the happening of a future event but it may declare a present custody determination is conditioned upon the continuation of present circumstances, and (2) that a party does not waive the right to appeal from a provisional order for support or maintenance by failing to take an interlocutory appeal. * * *Because we hold that the trial court order does not order a prospective custody modification upon the happening of a future event but only conditions a present custody determination upon the continuation of present circumstances, we affirm the trial court order in this regard. We also hold that the husband did not waive the right to appeal from a provisional order for support or maintenance by failing to take an interlocutory appeal, but that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for retroactive modification in the final decree. In all other respects we summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals, under which the trial court is affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part.
Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.
Leandrew Jones v. State of Indiana (6/28/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
May, Judge
Leandrew Jones was convicted after two bench trials of battery as a Class C felony, and being an habitual offender. He raises two issues: 1. Whether he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to trial by jury on the habitual offender charge; and 2. Whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction of battery as a Class C felony. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand. * * *Dale Johnson v. State of Indiana (6/28/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
SULLIVAN, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.
The State charged Dale Johnson with Burglary, as a Class A felony, approximately thirteen years after the alleged offense occurred. Johnson moved the trial court to dismiss the charge alleging that the State’s delay in filing it violated his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Johnson’s motion to dismiss, and Johnson appeals that interlocutory order. We affirm. * * *Robert Kanady v. State of Indiana (6/28/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]It is well-settled that the prosecutor is invested with broad discretion in the decision of such matters as when to prosecute. We conclude that Johnson has failed to demonstrate that the thirteen-year delay was without justification. The trial court did not err when it denied his motion to dismiss, and we hold that the State’s delay in filing charges against Johnson did not violate his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Affirmed.
KIRSCH, C.J., and RILEY, J., concur.
Robert Kanady appeals his conviction of child molesting, a Class C felony. He asserts the State failed to prove he had the requisite intent to commit that crime. We affirm.Jerry Lynn "Lenny" Nordman v. North Manchester Foundry, Inc., et al. [Labor Law]
VAIDIK, J., concurs.
SULLIVAN, J., concurs in result.
Jerry Lynn Nordman appeals the trial court’s order granting his employer’s Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction Prohibiting Violence or Threats of Violence. North Manchester Foundry (hereinafter “the Foundry”) claimed Nordman made a credible threat of violence against its employee Ezra Gahl. Nordman raises five issues, but we find the dispositive issue is whether his acts arose out of a labor dispute and thus the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Indiana’s Anti-Injunction Act. * * *Jon K. Fink v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, et al. (6/25/04 IndTaxCt - Not for Publication) [Procedural]Reversed and remanded with instructions.
BAKER, J., and NAJAM, J., concur.