Donald R. Mote

In Davis v. State, the defendant was charged with first-degree burglary after entering a private apartment without consent, being discovered inside searching items, and fleeing after a wallet was stolen; he was convicted of the lesser offense of entering to commit a felony. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to prove intent to commit a felony and certain evidentiary rulings by the trial court. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant's unauthorized presence, observed actions inside the home, the theft, and flight provided sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent, distinguishing the case from precedents like Easton v. State where such additional facts were absent. The court also found that any errors in admitting testimony were harmless because the facts were established by other competent evidence and did not require a directed verdict.

criminal law

The case involved Calvin Farrell Hadley, who was convicted by a jury of second-degree burglary for breaking into a business building with intent to commit theft. Hadley challenged the conviction through a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of his residence and a motion in arrest of judgment, arguing that the charging affidavit omitted the required mens rea element of 'knowingly' and that the search violated constitutional protections. The trial court denied the motions, entered judgment sentencing him to two to five years, and the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on appeal. On rehearing, the court held that any defect in the affidavit was cured by the verdict and that the search and seizure issues had already been fully addressed without raising new questions warranting reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of the appellant for inflicting physical injury during a robbery, based on an attack on a victim in her home on September 1, 1966, resulting in a life sentence. The court affirmed the jury's guilty verdict, finding sufficient evidence of identification through a matching fingerprint on broken glass from the entry point and that the taking of the purse from a nearby room satisfied the robbery statute's requirement of taking from the victim's person or presence. The court also held that alleged trial errors not objected to or raised in the motion for new trial were waived, as they did not constitute fundamental error apparent on the record that would have denied a fair trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Wayne Marlin Peterson's appeal from his conviction for robbery in Allen County, Indiana, following a jury trial. Peterson challenged the admission of photographs taken during a warrantless search of his car in Michigan, arguing that the search violated his constitutional rights under the state and federal constitutions because he had not been lawfully arrested and no search warrant had been obtained. The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed the conviction, holding that the search was incident to a valid arrest and that any potential error in admitting the evidence was harmless given the substantial independent testimony from multiple eyewitnesses identifying Peterson as the perpetrator and other unobjected-to evidence linking him to the crime. The court noted that the appellant had limited his appeal to specific exhibits and found no reversible error in the proceedings.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved the conviction of appellant Gray for contributing to the delinquency of two 17-year-old girls by permitting them to be out after the 11:00 P.M. curfew without parental consent and by furnishing them alcoholic beverages. After a bench trial, Gray was found guilty and sentenced to six months in jail, leading to this appeal based on insufficient evidence. The court reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence did not establish that Gray knowingly induced or contributed to the minors' violations of curfew or alcohol laws. The reasoning emphasized that mere presence at the party or possible assistance in acquiring beer for another person was inadequate, as the statute requires an active, knowledgeable effort to entice the prohibited conduct.

criminal law

In Wagner v. State, the appellant was charged with possession of heroin in violation of the 1935 Narcotic Act after a prior federal conviction for selling narcotics. Following a warrantless arrest and search based on a tip from a known informant, the trial court denied the motion to suppress the evidence, convicted the defendant after a bench trial, and imposed an indeterminate sentence of five to twenty years. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the arrest was lawful because the informant had previously provided reliable information to the officer, the tip was specific and recent, and the defendant had a narcotics record, making the seized evidence admissible. The court noted that informants are commonly and permissibly used in narcotics cases when their information is sufficiently reliable to support action.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is an appeal from a contempt judgment entered by the Steuben Circuit Court against appellants Clifton W. Chadwick and James W. Birchfield for violating a 1962 permanent injunction that barred operation of automobile races or related activities on specified premises. The trial court found the two appellants guilty of indirect civil contempt after a July 1964 race event, ordered each to pay $1,650 in compensatory damages and attorney fees to neighboring plaintiffs, and directed their commitment until payment; it exonerated the other defendants. On appeal the court held that the evidence, including the appellants' presence, financial interest, and actions in preparing the track despite a purported conveyance, was sufficient to support the contempt findings. It further concluded that the damage award was within the bounds of proof of diminished property values and not excessive or punitive. The judgment was affirmed.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a challenge by appellants, including a former member of the county reorganization committee, to the Huntington County school board's decision to construct a single senior high school facility for all county students in grades ten through twelve, as part of executing a previously adopted reorganization plan under the School Corporation Reorganization Act of 1959. The appellants sought injunctive relief, alleging that the board's actions were arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. The trial court denied the injunction after the close of the plaintiffs' evidence, and the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. The court reasoned that state statutes, including the Indiana General School Powers Act, vested exclusive discretion in the board of school trustees to determine school construction, numbers, and locations, and that the county committee's recommendations were not legally binding on the board. No substantial evidence supported claims of improper action by the board, which had relied on surveys and expert input in reaching its decision.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned relators who, as defendants in an injunction action filed by the Fort Wayne Teachers Association, sought a writ of mandate to compel the respondent judge to disqualify himself or grant a change of venue in pending contempt proceedings stemming from alleged violations of a temporary injunction. The trial court had granted a change of judge for the permanent injunction hearing but retained jurisdiction over the contempt information. The court denied the petition for the writ, holding that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy unavailable when an adequate remedy exists at law through appeal from an interlocutory order or final judgment. It further reasoned that contempt proceedings involve an inherent judicial power not subject to statutory change-of-venue rules unless explicitly provided by the legislature.

procedurelabor & employment

The case involved a patient's lawsuit against a physician for alleged medical malpractice in treating a double forearm fracture sustained in a fall, including the surgical reduction with metal plates and subsequent care involving splinting and advice on exercise. The Indiana Supreme Court granted the petition for transfer from the Appellate Court, reversed the trial court's judgment, and ordered a new trial. The court's core reasoning was that the trial court erred by issuing instructions that withdrew multiple specifications of negligence from the jury's consideration despite sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case, as the jury alone holds the duty to resolve conflicting factual issues under proper instructions.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved school trustees and taxpayers challenging the dismissal of their complaint seeking judicial review of the State Commission for the Reorganization of School Corporations' approval of a comprehensive plan to reorganize school districts in LaPorte County, Indiana. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, ruling that the Administrative Adjudication and Court Review Act did not apply to the Commission's actions. The court reasoned that the proceedings before the Commission were not final and involved only ministerial administrative functions rather than judicial decisions, so the Act's review procedures were inapplicable.

procedure

This case is an appeal by James Bowling, Jr. and John Hawkins, Jr. from their convictions for robbery under Indiana statute after a jury trial. The charges stemmed from an incident in which the defendants allegedly used a gun and physical force to take $25 from Thomas Parker on a street in Evansville. The appellants challenged the verdict on grounds including insufficient evidence, improper admission of Bowling's confession as involuntary, denial of directed verdicts, and lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that eyewitness testimony and other evidence supported the jury's findings, that the trial court properly resolved conflicting evidence on the confession's voluntariness, and that procedural objections were either waived or without merit.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a filling station owner who sued the City of Hammond for $6,000 in lost business profits after street widening and resurfacing for the Columbia Avenue Overpass project rendered access to his property difficult or impossible for about a year in 1962-1963. The plaintiff had not filed a remonstrance during the public hearing on the project and later sought compensation through litigation rather than eminent domain proceedings. The trial court granted summary judgment for the city, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because there was no taking of property or property rights and temporary business losses are not compensable in such circumstances. The court reasoned that general statutory provisions for eminent domain and street maintenance do not authorize damages for lost profits from temporary inconvenience during public improvements, and allowing such claims without specific legislative authorization would harm public infrastructure projects.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a taxpayer's challenge to the constitutionality of Indiana's Municipal Economic Development Act of 1965, under which the City of Greenfield sought to create an economic development commission, issue revenue bonds, and lease an industrial facility to a private company. The plaintiff alleged violations of multiple Indiana constitutional provisions regarding debt limits, lending of public credit, taxation for private purposes, and equal privileges, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court upheld the Act, finding the project served a public purpose, the bonds did not create municipal indebtedness or lend credit, and no special privileges were granted. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the revenue bonds payable solely from lease rentals did not violate constitutional debt or credit restrictions and that the Act was consistent with established precedents under stare decisis.

business & regulatory

The case concerned a dispute between two electric utilities over rights to serve territory annexed by the City of Warsaw in Kosciusko County, Indiana. After the annexation, the franchised utility (Northern Indiana Public Service Co.) negotiated unsuccessfully with the other utility (Koscuisko County Rural Electric Membership Corp.) to purchase its property in the annexed area, then filed a condemnation action in the county circuit court under Indiana Code § 55-4418a. The defendant utility objected to the court's jurisdiction, arguing that the United States (as mortgagee under a trust) was a necessary party. The trial court overruled the objections and appointed appraisers. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the plaintiff has discretion to name parties, the mortgagee received notice but did not intervene, and sovereign immunity would bar joining the United States in any event, so the condemnation proceeding could continue without it.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute over child custody modification in a divorce proceeding. After the trial court changed custody of three children from the father (Relator) to the mother based on changed circumstances, the father sought to appeal and requested that the trial court approve an appeal bond to stay enforcement of the custody order pending appeal. When the trial court refused to set the bond or stay the order, the father petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to act. The court denied the writ, holding that mandamus is unavailable where other remedies exist or where the trial court has discretion, and that the welfare of the children takes precedence in custody matters such that not all orders are automatically stayable by bond under the applicable court rule.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Gerald Wallace Jackson, who was charged and convicted by a jury in Marion County Criminal Court with uttering a forged instrument under Burns’ Stat. § 10-2102 after attempting to cash a counterfeit $110 check at a Guarantee Auto Store. Jackson appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to support the verdict, particularly that the endorsement was not proven forged, and error in admitting exhibits like a watch and ring. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of two to fourteen years plus a fine, holding that the evidence, including testimony from store staff and the police officer, was sufficient to show Jackson knowingly offered the forged check with intent to defraud. The court noted that proof of uttering does not require showing the defendant forged the instrument, and any potential error in admitting the exhibits was harmless given other competent evidence.

criminal law

In Mikels v. Mikels, the Indiana Supreme Court reviewed a trial court's decision to modify a divorce decree by transferring custody of a minor child from the father (appellant) to the mother (appellee) based on her petition claiming changed conditions, including her new employment and stable living situation. The majority affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that substantial evidence supported the modification and that the trial judge, having observed the parties and witnesses, was best positioned to assess whether the change in conditions warranted altering custody for the child's welfare. The court emphasized longstanding precedent requiring evidence of a decisive change in circumstances but declined to substitute its judgment for the trial court's evaluation. A dissent argued that the evidence was insufficient and that the judgment lacked the required finding of a decisive change necessary for the child's welfare.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned property owners in New Harmony, Indiana, who filed a verified petition protesting the town's adoption of ordinances to construct a sanitary sewer system financed by revenue bonds, citing lack of public need, excessive cost relative to benefits, and inadequate explanation to residents. After a hearing, the trial court ruled against the petitioners. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the negative judgment was supported by substantial probative evidence, including testimony from multiple witnesses establishing health hazards from existing cesspools and septic systems, odors, and the project's necessity for public welfare and tourism, while the appellants failed to meet their burden on the cost objection or other claims.

environmentpropertybusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a dispute between two Indiana school corporations over territory that the Civil City of Elkhart annexed in 1966, which the County Committee and State Commission then included in a plan to create or expand the Elkhart Community Schools at the expense of the Concord Community Schools. The trial court issued a temporary injunction halting the transfer under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act while the parties litigated their rights. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the School Corporation Reorganization Act of 1959 and its amendments established a comprehensive process for county-wide school reorganization that permitted boundary adjustments following municipal annexation and voter approval, even if earlier reorganization attempts had failed. The Court reasoned that the Act's declared policy and procedures for additional reorganization efforts after electoral defeats controlled the outcome and that unilateral city annexation could lawfully affect school corporation lines when the statutory steps were followed.

business & regulatoryprocedure