rial court abused its discretion in finding that defendant’s violation warranted serving the entirety of the remaining portion of his executed sentence in the DOC due to the level of his limited functioning and financial resources, his previous successful placement on work release, the nature of the violation, and the severity of the court’s sentence.
Criminal
Rogers v. Martin, No. 02S05-1603-CT-114, __N.E.3d__ (Ind., Oct. 26, 2016).
Although landowner had no duty to protect an invitee from an unforeseeable harm, she did have a duty to protect the invitee from the foreseeable exacerbation of the injury occurring in her home. Under Indiana’s Dram Shop Act, a person does not “furnish” alcohol by providing it to someone who already possesses it.
State v. Summers, No. 09A02-1604-MI-933, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 19, 2016).
Applying the intent-effects test, no ex post facto violation occurred when defendant committed the underlying offense in Illinois before Indiana’s definition of sex offender had been amended to include an obligation to register as a sex offender.
State v. Timbs, No. 27A04-1511-MI-1976, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2016).
Forfeiture of a vehicle worth four times the amount of the maximum fine of the crime was excessive.
Lewis v. State, No. 45S00-1601-LW-32, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 4, 2016).
The imposition of a sentence of life without parole was reversible error by the trial court because the sole aggravating factor supporting the sentence was not determined by the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt during the penalty phase. The Supreme Court concurred with defendant’s initial request, and in the interests of judicial economy, exercised their appellate prerogative and resentenced him to a total term of 88 years.