|
Hot Jobs in Evansville
Animal Cruelty Arrest
At approximately 7:45 P.M. Evansville Police Department officers were sent to 230 N. Rotherwood in response to a family dispute. On scene, officers were met by the resident who told them she and her boyfriend, Kededrique Boyd, had been arguing earlier in the day. The two were arguing over property after the decision was made to end their relationship. The woman told officers that she left to go to work, and while at work, Boyd sent her a video from his cellphone showing him throwing a dog kennel containing her 10-week old puppy (named “Babyâ€) over their 2nd story balcony. The woman left her place of employment and returned home, finding the crying puppy still in the kennel on the ground.
The woman showed officers the cellphone video sent to her by Boyd. She also showed them Facebook Messenger texts sent to her from Boyd admitting his actions regarding the dog.
Officers arrested Boyd and confiscated the cellphone from which the video was taken. Boyd told officers that he threw the dog over the balcony because he was angry. He stated he knew he shouldn’t have done it.
Evansville Animal Control arrived and took custody of the puppy. The puppy was taken to the All Pet Emergency Clinic for treatment.
Boyd was transported to the Vanderburgh County Confinement Center and faces the following charges:
CT I Animal Cruelty – Domestic Violence (Level 6 Felony)
CT. II Animal Cruelty – (Level 6 Felony)
CT III Animal Cruelty – Family Member (Class A Misdemeanor)
Â
Early Morning Crash on US 41 Results in Fatality
- On Friday, June 17, 2016 at approximately 1:21am the Vanderburgh County Sheriff’s Office responded to the area of US Highway 41 at Volkman Road upon report of fatal vehicle crash involving a passenger vehicle and a semi tractor trailer.
- On scene investigation and witness statements indicated that a dark gray passenger vehicle had been traveling southbound on US 41 at a high rate of speed. The tractor trailer had been traveling north on US 41 prior to turning west onto Volkman Road. The trailer had nearly cleared the intersection prior to being struck by the passenger vehicle.
The driver of the passenger vehicle died at the crash scene. The driver of the tractor trailer was not injured. Alcohol use by the the passenger vehicle driver is being investigated as a likely factor in the crash.
Southbound US 41 was blocked for nearly two and a half hours during the investigation and clean-up. The deceased driver, whose name is being withheld while the the Vanderburgh County Coroner’s Office makes notifications, was the the sole occupant of the passenger vehicle.
Pictured above: Map depicting location of fatal crash. (Image courtesy of Google Maps)
The Right to Gripe: States Seek to Protect Negative Online Reviews
by the PEW Charitable Trusts/Stateline
Have you ever posted a negative review on a site like Yelp or TripAdvisor? It could be risky: Some businesses have inserted “gag clauses†in the fine print of service agreements barring you from doing just that. Some have even threatened legal action against complaining customers or slapped them with financial penalties.
That’s why legislatures in two states — California and Maryland — have enacted laws that prohibit such “non-disparagement†clauses in consumer contracts, and several others considered similar measures this year.
“To prevent someone from writing a negative review or sue them for doing that is plain wrong,†said Massachusetts Democratic state Rep. John Scibak, who sponsored a measure to prohibit the clauses. “People should be able to provide their feedback without repercussions.â€
Scibak’s bill died in committee this year, but he plans to refile it in January. He hopes the Massachusetts legislature will soon follow the lead of California, the first state to pass gag clause legislation, known as the “Right to Yelp†law, in 2014.
The California law bars companies from using non-disparagement clauses unless consumers knowingly and voluntarily waive their right to complain. Violators face a civil penalty of $2,500 for the first violation, $5,000 for each subsequent one and an additional $10,000 for “willful, intentional, or reckless†violation of the law.
This year, Maryland became the second state to approve a ban on consumer non-disparagement clauses. The Maryland law, which Republican Gov. Larry Hogan signed in April, considers gag clauses an unfair and deceptive trade practice under the state’s consumer protection law, and merchants who violate it are subject to civil and criminal penalties. The law also prohibits consumers from publishing proprietary information or trade secrets.
Maryland Democratic state Del. Jeffrey Waldstreicher, who sponsored the bill, said he views it as a consumer rights issue. Discouraging consumers from providing truthful reviews that can be shared with others “starts to chip away at our whole system of e-commerce,†he said.
Waldstreicher said he was particularly outraged when he learned that a wedding venue had allegedly forced brides and grooms to sign a clause in their contracts saying they could be sued if they or any of their guests wrote negative reviews.
“It was so outlandish that not only the client could be sued, but they could be sued for what their guests said,†he said.
This year, at least three other states — New Jersey, Oklahoma and South Carolina —considered gag clause bills. None has passed.
It’s a new issue, said Pam Greenberg, a researcher at the National Conference of State Legislatures, and “legislators are hearing more and more from constituents about these problems.†More gag clause measures are likely to be introduced in state legislatures in the years to come, she said.
A federal measure that would ban consumer gag clauses also is moving through Congress. The U.S. Senate passed the Consumer Review Freedom Act by unanimous consent in December. Last week, a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee adopted a related bill and forwarded it to the full committee.
Gag Clause Conflicts
No one knows how many companies insert non-disparagement clauses into consumer contracts or how many customers have been affected by them, according to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit technology policy think tank. But the issue has arisen in a number of industries, from retail to hospitality.
Several cases involving gag clauses have drawn national attention in recent years. In one instance, an online novelty gift company allegedly demanded $3,500 from a Utah couple who posted a negative review about poor customer service on ripoffreport.com. The couple refused to pay and ran into trouble getting credit after the company reported the unpaid debt.
In another case, a Texas pet-sitting company that cared for a couple’s two dogs and a fish sued them for $6,766 after the woman wrote a lengthy, negative review on Yelp.
Consumer advocates say most customers aren’t aware of non-disparagement clauses, which often are buried deep within boilerplate language. They’re usually found online when customers click the “accept†button under “terms and conditions.†In written contracts, they’re tucked into the fine print.
Paul Levy, an attorney for watchdog group Public Citizen, said large businesses such as banks and telephone companies generally don’t use consumer gag clauses, but small businesses sometimes do. He said his group and other consumer advocates think that’s a bad idea.
“These clauses prevent consumers from saying true things about people with whom they’ve done business,†Levy said. “They prevent other consumers from learning the truth about how companies have done business. And they hurt other businesses that operate on the up-and-up and don’t need these clauses to protect themselves.â€
Right to Yelp laws are actually “pro-small business,†Levy said. “They protect the good businesses against unfair competition by those who want to suppress the truth about themselves.â€
Levy said businesses have other ways to counter negative online postings. They can — and often do — respond online to dispute comments or apologize for poor service. And Levy noted that laws banning non-disparagement clauses don’t preclude businesses from suing customers for defamation if they believe the comments are false and are damaging their reputation.
“There are cases in which false statements can hurt people. Libel law is there to take care of them,†Levy said. “You don’t need a non-disparagement agreement.â€
But that’s easier said than done for small-business owners, said Karen Harned, executive director of the Small Business Legal Center, part of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), an industry association.
Many small businesses can’t afford to hire an attorney and bring a lawsuit against an ax-grinding customer who writes nasty reviews, Harned said. Online sites often allow reviewers to remain anonymous, she said, and a single consumer with a grudge can write numerous negative posts and harm a business’ reputation.
But Harned said the NFIB hasn’t taken a formal position on Right to Yelp laws because it also has concerns about freedom of speech.
“Small-business owners are very pro-First Amendment,†she said. “We’re not sure gag clauses are the right solution.â€
Right to Yelp
Online review companies have supported legislative efforts to pass Right to Yelp laws. So have groups such as the California Retailers Association and the National Retail Federation, as well as the Internet Association, a trade association that includes Amazon and eBay.
Laurent Crenshaw, director of public policy at Yelp, said the whole point of websites such as his is to give consumers the ability to read other customers’ reviews and take them into consideration before making a purchase or using a service.
“We are opposed to gag clauses that attempt to silence individuals and prevent them from sharing their honest experience online,†Crenshaw said. “When a business owner inserts a clause into a contract, at the end of the day they’re trying to silence the person.â€
Crenshaw said he isn’t aware of any organized opposition to legislation that would do away with gag clauses. In the California and Maryland legislative hearings, for example, no one testified against Right to Yelp bills.
And support for these types of measures thus far has been bipartisan, both in states that passed them and in Congress.
That’s why Maryland’s Waldstreicher said he thinks other state legislatures will follow the lead of his state and California.
“This is a law that makes a meaningful difference and is also politically popular. Even states that have divided government may pass it,†he said. In Maryland, which has a majority Democratic legislature, “We did it with the signature of a Republican governor who is considered very pro-business.â€
NEWER
Top State Stories 6/16
OLDER
Sober Dorms
Have you ever posted a negative review on a site like Yelp or TripAdvisor? It could be risky: Some businesses have inserted “gag clauses†in the fine print of service agreements barring you from doing just that. Some have even threatened legal action against complaining customers or slapped them with financial penalties.
That’s why legislatures in two states — California and Maryland — have enacted laws that prohibit such “non-disparagement†clauses in consumer contracts, and several others considered similar measures this year.
“To prevent someone from writing a negative review or sue them for doing that is plain wrong,†said Massachusetts Democratic state Rep. John Scibak, who sponsored a measure to prohibit the clauses. “People should be able to provide their feedback without repercussions.â€
Scibak’s bill died in committee this year, but he plans to refile it in January. He hopes the Massachusetts legislature will soon follow the lead of California, the first state to pass gag clause legislation, known as the “Right to Yelp†law, in 2014.
The California law bars companies from using non-disparagement clauses unless consumers knowingly and voluntarily waive their right to complain. Violators face a civil penalty of $2,500 for the first violation, $5,000 for each subsequent one and an additional $10,000 for “willful, intentional, or reckless†violation of the law.
This year, Maryland became the second state to approve a ban on consumer non-disparagement clauses. The Maryland law, which Republican Gov. Larry Hogan signed in April, considers gag clauses an unfair and deceptive trade practice under the state’s consumer protection law, and merchants who violate it are subject to civil and criminal penalties. The law also prohibits consumers from publishing proprietary information or trade secrets.
Maryland Democratic state Del. Jeffrey Waldstreicher, who sponsored the bill, said he views it as a consumer rights issue. Discouraging consumers from providing truthful reviews that can be shared with others “starts to chip away at our whole system of e-commerce,†he said.
Waldstreicher said he was particularly outraged when he learned that a wedding venue had allegedly forced brides and grooms to sign a clause in their contracts saying they could be sued if they or any of their guests wrote negative reviews.
“It was so outlandish that not only the client could be sued, but they could be sued for what their guests said,†he said.
This year, at least three other states — New Jersey, Oklahoma and South Carolina —considered gag clause bills. None has passed.
It’s a new issue, said Pam Greenberg, a researcher at the National Conference of State Legislatures, and “legislators are hearing more and more from constituents about these problems.†More gag clause measures are likely to be introduced in state legislatures in the years to come, she said.
A federal measure that would ban consumer gag clauses also is moving through Congress. The U.S. Senate passed the Consumer Review Freedom Act by unanimous consent in December. Last week, a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee adopted a related bill and forwarded it to the full committee.
Gag Clause Conflicts
No one knows how many companies insert non-disparagement clauses into consumer contracts or how many customers have been affected by them, according to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit technology policy think tank. But the issue has arisen in a number of industries, from retail to hospitality.
Several cases involving gag clauses have drawn national attention in recent years. In one instance, an online novelty gift company allegedly demanded $3,500 from a Utah couple who posted a negative review about poor customer service on ripoffreport.com. The couple refused to pay and ran into trouble getting credit after the company reported the unpaid debt.
In another case, a Texas pet-sitting company that cared for a couple’s two dogs and a fish sued them for $6,766 after the woman wrote a lengthy, negative review on Yelp.
Consumer advocates say most customers aren’t aware of non-disparagement clauses, which often are buried deep within boilerplate language. They’re usually found online when customers click the “accept†button under “terms and conditions.†In written contracts, they’re tucked into the fine print.
Paul Levy, an attorney for watchdog group Public Citizen, said large businesses such as banks and telephone companies generally don’t use consumer gag clauses, but small businesses sometimes do. He said his group and other consumer advocates think that’s a bad idea.
“These clauses prevent consumers from saying true things about people with whom they’ve done business,†Levy said. “They prevent other consumers from learning the truth about how companies have done business. And they hurt other businesses that operate on the up-and-up and don’t need these clauses to protect themselves.â€
Right to Yelp laws are actually “pro-small business,†Levy said. “They protect the good businesses against unfair competition by those who want to suppress the truth about themselves.â€
Levy said businesses have other ways to counter negative online postings. They can — and often do — respond online to dispute comments or apologize for poor service. And Levy noted that laws banning non-disparagement clauses don’t preclude businesses from suing customers for defamation if they believe the comments are false and are damaging their reputation.
“There are cases in which false statements can hurt people. Libel law is there to take care of them,†Levy said. “You don’t need a non-disparagement agreement.â€
But that’s easier said than done for small-business owners, said Karen Harned, executive director of the Small Business Legal Center, part of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), an industry association.
Many small businesses can’t afford to hire an attorney and bring a lawsuit against an ax-grinding customer who writes nasty reviews, Harned said. Online sites often allow reviewers to remain anonymous, she said, and a single consumer with a grudge can write numerous negative posts and harm a business’ reputation.
But Harned said the NFIB hasn’t taken a formal position on Right to Yelp laws because it also has concerns about freedom of speech.
“Small-business owners are very pro-First Amendment,†she said. “We’re not sure gag clauses are the right solution.â€
Right to Yelp
Online review companies have supported legislative efforts to pass Right to Yelp laws. So have groups such as the California Retailers Association and the National Retail Federation, as well as the Internet Association, a trade association that includes Amazon and eBay.
Laurent Crenshaw, director of public policy at Yelp, said the whole point of websites such as his is to give consumers the ability to read other customers’ reviews and take them into consideration before making a purchase or using a service.
“We are opposed to gag clauses that attempt to silence individuals and prevent them from sharing their honest experience online,†Crenshaw said. “When a business owner inserts a clause into a contract, at the end of the day they’re trying to silence the person.â€
Crenshaw said he isn’t aware of any organized opposition to legislation that would do away with gag clauses. In the California and Maryland legislative hearings, for example, no one testified against Right to Yelp bills.
And support for these types of measures thus far has been bipartisan, both in states that passed them and in Congress.
That’s why Maryland’s Waldstreicher said he thinks other state legislatures will follow the lead of his state and California.
“This is a law that makes a meaningful difference and is also politically popular. Even states that have divided government may pass it,†he said. In Maryland, which has a majority Democratic legislature, “We did it with the signature of a Republican governor who is considered very pro-business.â€
NEWER
Top State Stories 6/16
OLDER
Sober Dorms
Evansville Municipal Code Dealing with Fireworks
 Evansville Municipal Code Dealing with Fireworks
As the Fourth of July approaches and many prepare to celebrate the 240th birthday of the United States the Evansville Police Department asks that those who use fireworks be careful and also be respectful of their neighbors and others by following the Evansville Municipal Code relating to the usage of fireworks. Attached below is the Municipal Code.
9.10.020 Fireworks – Evansville Municipal Code
(A) Consumer fireworks may be used within the corporate limits of the City of Evansville only under the provisions of this section.
(1) For the purposes of this section, the term “consumer fireworks†means a small firework that is designed primarily to produce visible effects by combustion, and that is required to comply with the construction, chemical composition, and labeling regulations promulgated by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission under 16 CFR 1507. The term also includes some small devices designed to produce an audible effect, such as whistling devices, ground devices containing 50 milligrams or less of explosive composition, and aerial devices containing 130 milligrams or less of explosive composition. Propelling or expelling charges consisting of a mixture of charcoal, sulfur, and potassium nitrate are not considered as designed to produce an audible effect. Consumer fireworks:
(a) Include:
(i) Aerial devices, which include sky rockets, missile-type rockets, helicopter or aerial spinners, roman candles, mines, and shells;
(ii) Ground audible devices, which include firecrackers, salutes, and chasers; and
(iii) Firework devices containing combinations of the effects described in subsections (A)(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of this section; and
(b) Do not include the following items:
(i) Dipped sticks or wire sparklers. However, total pyrotechnic composition may not exceed 100 grams per item. Devices containing chlorate or perchlorate salts may not exceed five grams in total composition per item.
(ii) Cylindrical fountains.
(iii) Cone fountains.
(iv) Illuminating torches
(v) Wheels.
(vi) Ground spinners.
(vii) Flitter sparklers.
(viii) Snakes or glow worms.
(ix) Trick noisemakers, which include:
A. Party poppers.
B. Booby traps.
C. Snappers.
D. Trick matches.
(x) Cigarette loads.
(xi) Auto burglar alarms.
(2) No person shall use, ignite or discharge consumer fireworks within the corporate limits of the City of Evansville except during the following times:
(a) Between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and two hours after sunset not to exceed 10:30 p.m. on June 29th, June 30th, July 1st, July 2nd, July 3rd, July 5th, July 6th, July 7th, July 8th, and July 9th; and
(b) Between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight on July 4th; and
(c) Between the hours of 10:00 a.m. on December 31st and 1:00 a.m. on January 1st; and
(d) Repealed by Ord. G-2015-28.
(e) Repealed by Ord. G-2015-28.
(f) If in any calendar year the City bans fireworks for the periods described in subsections (A)(2)(a) and (b) of this section (June 29th through July 9th), then in that calendar year only citizens may discharge consumer fireworks on additional dates as determined by the City Administration between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and two hours after sunset not to exceed 10:30 p.m.
(3) No person may use, ignite, or discharge consumer fireworks on any public street or in any public park or public area within the corporate limits of the City of Evansville at any time.
(4) No person may use, ignite, or discharge consumer fireworks in a manner which causes them to land upon property owned or occupied by another person.
(5) Any person who sells or offers to sell consumer fireworks within the City shall post a clear and conspicuous notice of the restrictions in this section, specifically the dates and times set forth in subsections (A)(2) and (3) of this section at or near each entrance to their business.
(6) This section shall not apply to supervised public fireworks displays which are in compliance with IC 22-11-4-1 et seq. and have been properly permitted and approved.
(B) No person shall conduct a fireworks display unless that person has obtained a permit from the State Fire Marshal pursuant to IC 22-11-14-2. Before applying to the State Fire Marshal for a permit, the applicant must show proof of insurance in the amount of not less than $100,000 for damages caused to a person or persons, and not less than $100,000 for damage to property. The applicant must also obtain a license for the display from the Chief of the Fire Department. The Chief of the Fire Department may issue a license for a fireworks display only upon finding that the applicant is qualified to conduct the display; and the display will not be hazardous to persons or property. [Ord. G-2015-28, passed 9-28-15; Ord. G-2012-14 § 1, passed 8-15-2012; Ord. G-2010-24 § 1, passed 11-10-10; Ord. G-2010-18 § 1, passed 7-2-10; Ord. G-2007-9, passed 8-28-07. 1962 Code, Art. 2, Ch. 6, § 2; 1982 Code § 131.02; 1983 Code § 13.131.02.]
Governor Pence Announces Appointments to Funding Indiana’s Roads Task Force
Also Makes Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions
Indianapolis – Governor Mike Pence today announced his appointments to the Funding Indiana’s Roads for a Stronger, Safer Tomorrow (FIRSST) task force created by House Enrolled Act 1001 during the 2016 legislative session. The bill, signed into law by Governor Pence early this year, provided more than $1.2 billion in new funding for road and bridge preservation and established a task force to develop a long-term funding plan for state highways and bridges.
Governor Pence’s appointments include:
- Don G. Brewer [Orange County], appointed to serve a one-year term through June 30, 2017
- Mayor Joseph E. McGuinness [Johnson County], appointed to serve a one-year term through June 30, 2017
- Dennis E. Faulkenberg [Marion County], appointed to serve a one-year term through June 30, 2017
- Brandye Hendrickson [Hamilton County], appointed to serve a one-year term through June 30, 2017
- Michael E. Sodrel [Bartholomew County], appointed to serve a one-year term through June 30, 2017
- Christopher D. Atkins [Hancock County], appointed to serve a one-year term through June 30, 2017
The FIRSST task force will meet over the summer and fall months and submit its recommendations to the Governor and Indiana General Assembly by January 1, 2017.
Governor Pence also recently made appointments to the following boards and commissions.
Indiana Board of Accountancy
Jenni L. McNaughton [Hendricks County], appointed to serve a three-year term beginning July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019
Bureau of Motor Vehicles Commission
Kathy K. Ettensohn [Vanderburgh County], appointed to serve a four-year term through June 15, 2020
Indiana Emergency Response Commission
Jeffrey W. Larmore [Johnson County], appointed to serve at the Governor’s pleasure
Cara B. Cyrus [Jefferson County], appointed to serve at the Governor’s pleasure
Juvenile Justice State Advisory Group
Hon. Rhett M. Stuard [Hendricks County], appointed to serve at the Governor’s pleasure
Donald J. Travis [Hamilton County], appointed to serve at the Governor’s pleasure
Regional Works Councils
Robert J. Schacht [Porter County], appointed to serve a two-year term in Region 1 through June 15, 2018
Sexual Assault Victim Advocate Standards & Certification Board
Kelly L. Vates [Jasper County], appointed to serve a four-year term beginning June 15, 2020
Kristin P. Pulice [Hamilton County], appointed to serve a four-year term beginning June 15, 2020
Kyle L. Allen [Marion County], appointed to serve a four-year term beginning June 15, 2020
Holly A. Renz [Madison County], appointed to serve a four-year term beginning June 15, 2020
Dr. Tara L. Harris [Marion County], appointed to serve a four-year term beginning June 15, 2020
Samantha L. Walton [Marion County], appointed to serve a four-year term beginning June 15, 202
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Nominating Committee
Allen E. Paul [Wayne County], appointed serve a four-year term as Chair through June 15, 202
Alcoa Teacher Bootcamp Touring Ivy Tech
SECOND ANNUAL ALCOA FOUNDATION TEACHERS’ MANUFACTURING BOOTCAMP TO BEGIN IN JUNE
Program designed to create new, job-ready workforce
Teachers and guidance counselors from a four-county area have been selected for a unique program that will provide hands-on instruction to teachers about careers in manufacturing, the backbone of Indiana’s economy.
The Alcoa Foundation awarded a $50,000 grant to develop the “Teachers’ Manufacturing Bootcamp,†a program administered by the Grow Southwest Indiana Workforce Investment Board. The program provides a weekly stipend to teachers during the two-week program and free, graduate-level credit from Oakland City University.
The Teachers’ Manufacturing Bootcamp will be targeted to educators in Warrick, Posey, Vanderburgh and Gibson counties. It will involve hands-on instruction at manufacturing locations with assistance from Ivy Tech Community College, Oakland City University and the University of Southern Indiana.
According to data from the Indiana Manufacturing Association and the National Association of Manufacturers, the annual average wage for manufacturing careers in the state of Indiana is $70,333. Also, research shows that more than 25 percent of all earnings in our state come from manufacturing – making Indiana number one in the nation.
Also, manufacturing is the biggest segment of the state’s economy, outranking every other economic sector. It has accounted for more than half of the state’s growth in the last five years. Despite these impressive numbers, manufacturers report difficulty in recruiting and preparing the next generation of employees for these rewarding careers.
The goal of the Teachers’ Manufacturing Bootcamp is to demonstrate to educators the rewarding careers available in manufacturing and also break stereotypes about the jobs that are available today.
“Many manufacturers in our region are aware of their future workforce needs and the inaccurate perception of their industry,†says Jim Heck, executive director of the Grow Southwest Indiana Workforce Investment Board, Inc. “This program will arm teachers with the knowledge to influence the future pipeline of employees.â€
Thirty educators will be selected in the first year of the two-year program, which officially begins on Monday, June 13, and will include time at four participating manufacturers – Alcoa, SABIC Innovative Plastics, Berry Plastics and Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana.
“Alcoa is proud of the results and the collaboration that has already taken place from this grant,†said Jeff Boris, Location Manager for Alcoa Global Packaging at Alcoa Warrick Operations. “The teachers selected for this program will learn about the careers available in manufacturing and they will be able to take back some skills that they can apply in their classrooms.â€
The curriculum for the program will be developed in partnership with Ivy Tech Community College and will include material on manufacturing safety, quality, lean manufacturing, process management, and reliability excellence. During visits to manufacturing locations, the educators will learn about job responsibilities, wages, work conditions, and career potential.
In addition, participating teachers will complete homework assignments, incorporate what they learn into classroom lessons, receive a weekly stipend of $550 and graduate-level credit from Oakland City University.
Here is a list of the teachers who have been selected for the 2016 Alcoa Foundation Teachers’ Manufacturing Bootcamp:
Dakota Adcox – Central High School
Erin Baumgardner – Harrison High School
Beau Brandt – North High School
Kyle Brasher – Gibson Southern High School
Chad Cain – Harrison High School
Mary Lou Fish – Lodge Community School
Sarah Elaman – Castle High School
Max Engelhardt – Central High School
Chad Fetscher – Harrison High School
Virginia Fields – North High School
Emil Fleck – Bosse High School
Bridget Fussner – Castle North Middle School
Matt Hart – Gibson Southern High School
Chad Hartmann – Helfrich Park STEM Academy
Chris Hillenbrand – Boonville Middle School
Sara Killebrew – Castle North Middle School
Craig Maikranz – Gibson Southern High School
Brittany Morrison – North High School
Janelle Nisly – Bosse High School
Amy Norris – Gibson Southern High School
Ryan Osborn – Harrison High School
David Purvis – Mt Vernon Junior High School
Becki Recker – Castle High School
Clara Roberts – Bosse High School
Kerry Sensenbrenner – Castle North Middle School
Darlene Short – Castle North Middle School
Corey Simon – North High School
Johnathan Spencer – North High School
Melanie Wagner – Princeton Comm Middle School
Beth Willner – Harrison High School
For more information or to apply for the Teachers’ Manufacturing Bootcamp visit http://www.TeachersBootcamp2016.com or contact Grow Southwest Indiana Workforce, 812.492.4505.
Justices Toss Meth Conviction, Advise Courts On Indigent Depositions
Dave Stafford for www.theindianalawyer.com
A Huntington County man’s conviction for dealing meth and 40-year sentence were reversed Thursday by the Indiana Supreme Court, which remanded the case for a new trial and used the decision to send a message to trial courts. The court ruled the denial of depositions of state witnesses by indigent defendants must be supported in the record by findings of fact.
Thomas Hale was convicted of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine, but he was denied the opportunity to depose two potential co-defendants who had struck plea deals with the state. Huntington Superior Judge Jeffrey R. Heffelfinger denied Hale’s motions to depose Amanda Casto and Greggory Fisher the same day the motion was filed. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Hale’s conviction, finding Hale had waived his objection when he failed to re-raise it when the co-defendants were called to testify at his trial.
But a unanimous Supreme Court found the trial court had abused its discretion by rejecting Hale’s motion to depose the co-defendants, because the denial failed to issue findings explaining the court’s rationale. Justice Mark Massa wrote for the court that denials of motions to depose must include findings addressing tests for whether the discovery request is sufficiently designated, material to the defense, and whether the state made a sufficient showing of paramount interest in non-disclosure. These tests spring from Dillard v. State, 257 Ind. 282, 291–92, 274 N.E.2d 387, 392 (1971), and Crawford v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1165, 1169 (Ind. 2011).
“Here, Hale sought to depose two State’s witnesses, after they had pleaded guilty to pending charges and were disclosed as State’s witnesses. On its face, the motion clearly satisfied the first two parts of the Dillard test: it identified the two witnesses sought to be deposed and why the proposed deponents were material to the State’s case,†Massa wrote. “And Hale even went beyond these requirements, noting how long the depositions were expected to last (a mere half-hour each), and that counsel had already coordinated a deposition time with counsel for both of the proposed deponents so that the depositions could occur on the same day, still some three weeks in advance of the date then scheduled for trial. Yet the motion was denied the same day it was filed, without explanation.
“(W)e believe that when the trial court denies an indigent defendant’s motion to conduct a deposition at public expense, the court should issue factual findings addressing each part of the Dillard/Crawford test. The trial judge is ultimately in the best position to consider the sincerity of the parties’ arguments regarding the three-part test, as well as the overall costs associated with the proposed depositions, and potential alternatives that may better promote pre-trial efficiency of the case. But without the benefit of knowing the trial court’s rationale, our appellate courts are forced to presume that ‘exculpatory or mitigating evidence would have surfaced from the depositions sought,’†Massa wrote, citing Murphy v. State, 265 Ind. at 121, 352 N.E.2d at 483 (1976). “Specific findings by the trial court, however, should resolve that ambiguity going forward.”
The case is Thomas L. Hale v. State of Indiana, 35S02-1601-CR-37. This is also the first opinion new Justice Geoffrey Slaughter has joined since taking the bench Monday.