Frederick Eugene Rakestraw

This case involved a county assessor who sought a declaratory judgment to challenge the State Board of Tax Commissioners' decision granting tax exemptions on most of eight tracts of land owned by Indiana University trustees. The trial court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling. The core issue was whether the assessor had standing to question the Board's final determination on property tax exemptions. The court held that the assessor lacked standing because statutes designate the State Board as the final authority in such administrative tax matters, with local assessors serving only as subordinate governmental instrumentalities without authority to contest those decisions.

taxespropertyprocedure

The case involved an appellant convicted of theft after a bench trial, based on evidence that he possessed a boat, motor, and trailer stolen from a garage shortly after the break-in, along with inconsistent statements to police and an offer to trade a television set for storage. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to one to ten years in prison. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, holding that guilt for larceny can be inferred from exclusive and unexplained possession of recently stolen property, that the appellant's vague explanation was insufficient, and that questions of fact and witness credibility are for the trial court to decide without reweighing on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of the appellant for sodomy upon his ten-year-old stepdaughter following a bench trial, with a sentence of two to fourteen years in prison. The appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict and argued that the trial court erred by not committing him to the Division of Mental Health under the criminal sexual psychopath statutes instead. The court found the evidence sufficient, relying primarily on the testimony of the victim, her sister, and mother when viewed in the light most favorable to the finding, noting that witness credibility is for the trial court to determine. On the psychopath claim, the psychiatrists had opined the appellant was not a criminal sexual psychopath, and the court held that the statute leaves the final determination to the trial judge regardless of expert testimony, with such decisions not subject to appellate review. The judgment was therefore affirmed.

criminal law

The case involved an appellant charged with robbery who was convicted after a bench trial of the lesser-included offense of assault with intent to commit larceny and sentenced to one to ten years in prison. The appellant appealed, claiming insufficient evidence and error in admitting testimony about prior convictions. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence viewed most favorably to the state supported the finding, that the limited prior-conviction testimony was properly admitted to impeach credibility, and that any factual dispute over whether the taking involved gambling winnings was a credibility question for the trial court.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Harry Stock's conviction for theft of a 1964 Chevrolet sedan after a bench trial in which he was found guilty and sentenced to a fine and jail time. On appeal, Stock challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the owner's testimony was unreliable and that his own and his witness's testimony should have been given greater weight. The court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the owner's testimony provided substantial evidence of probative value if believed by the trial court, and that appellate courts do not reweigh conflicting evidence or determine witness credibility. The court noted that the trial judge had the opportunity to evaluate the witnesses and that the evidence supported the finding of guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was an appeal from a conviction for issuing a fraudulent check, where the defendant, president of a corporation in financial trouble, issued a check to pay a corporate obligation that was later dishonored for insufficient funds. The trial court convicted the defendant of obtaining money by fraudulent check after amending the indictment post-plea to reference payment of an obligation instead. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that the statute creates two distinct offenses and that the amendment altered a material element of the charged crime, creating a fatal variance with the evidence, which only supported the uncharged offense of issuing a check for an obligation; the court also noted the imposed sentence did not match the relevant statute.

criminal lawprocedure