Theodore R. Boehm

The case involved Oscar Belmares-Bautista, who was pulled over for loud music, produced a forged Mexican driver's license, and was convicted after a bench trial of possessing counterfeit identification and driving without a valid license. Representing himself, he had signed Spanish-language forms advising of rights and waiving counsel, and he confirmed through an interpreter at his initial hearing that he understood his rights and wished to proceed pro se. The sole issue on appeal was whether this constituted a valid waiver of the right to counsel under the federal and Indiana constitutions. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the signed forms and hearing exchange were sufficient to establish a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver where the defendant made no claim of misunderstanding, coercion, or translation error, consistent with precedents like Maloney v. State.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involves an appeal from a trial court's grant of summary judgment to an insurance company in a declaratory judgment action regarding its duty to defend insureds in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. The underlying suit alleged negligence related to the ingestion of a controlled substance by a minor at the insured's home. The trial court ruled that a policy exclusion for claims arising from controlled substances barred coverage, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal. The dismissal was because the order did not resolve all claims in the case and lacked the certification required under Trial Rule 54(B) to be appealable as a final judgment, following the bright-line rule from Martin v. Amoco Oil Co.

proceduretorts & liability

The case Dowden v. State was a criminal appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals from a trial court judgment. The court issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The three-judge panel, consisting of Senior Judge Boehm along with Judges Riley and May, unanimously concurred in the affirmance without further elaboration in the excerpt.

criminal law

The case Clark v. State was a criminal appeal filed in the Indiana Court of Appeals after a trial court ruling against defendant Clark. The court reviewed the matter under case number 33A01-1004-CR-236 and disposed of it through an unpublished memorandum decision. Senior Judge Boehm authored the decision affirming the lower court's outcome, with Judges Robb and Brown concurring. No further details on the underlying facts, charges, or legal analysis appear in the excerpt because the opinion was not published.

criminal law

In State v. Hobbs, the defendant was arrested inside a restaurant pursuant to an unrelated warrant, after which officers summoned a drug dog to sniff his parked car in the public lot; the dog's alert led to a warrantless search revealing marijuana and paraphernalia. The trial court suppressed the evidence, concluding that the dog's alert supplied probable cause but a warrant was still required. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception allows warrantless searches of operational vehicles in public places based on probable cause, and that the search was reasonable under Article I, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution because the defendant was already arrested and the alert provided strong evidence of contraband. The decision rested on the vehicle's ready mobility, its location in a public place, and the balance of intrusion against the state's interest in preventing evidence loss.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a patient who was injured after falling while leaving a hospital on crutches following denial of her request for a wheelchair; she initially filed a premises liability negligence complaint in court, which was dismissed for failing to first submit a proposed complaint to the Indiana Department of Insurance as required by the Medical Malpractice Act. The patient had filed an identical proposed complaint with the IDOI shortly before the dismissal, and the hospital sought to bar it as untimely under the Act's two-year statute of limitations. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the hospital, holding that the IDOI complaint qualified as a continuation of the original action under the Journey’s Account Statute. The core reasoning was that the complaints alleged the same facts and thus provided sufficient notice to the hospital, and the statute's language does not require the new filing to occur after the original action's failure.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare