Pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 103, a defendant preserves a continuing objection to the admission of evidence for appellate review simply by making a timely objection to that evidence during trial, identifying the specific ground for the objection, and receiving the trial court’s definitive ruling on the objection on the record at trial.
Criminal
State v. Watson, No. 25A-CR-1789, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 18, 2026).
Under Indiana law, prior accusations are demonstrably false where the victim has admitted the falsity of the charges or they have been disproved.
Gluys v. State, No. 25A-CR-1488, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 25, 2026).
“Harassment” for purposes of the crime of invasion of privacy is based on the definition found in Indiana Code section 34-6-2-51.5.
Shabazz v. State, No. 25S-CR-183, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 23, 2026).
To show good cause under Interim Rule 14(C) for remote testimony in a criminal trial, the State must present case-specific evidence that allowing a particular witness to testify remotely is necessary to prevent a concrete and substantial harm that would otherwise likely occur and that could not be adequately addressed if the witness were to testify in person.
Ewing v. State, No. 26S-CR-43, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 12, 2026).
A prosecutor cannot seek a sanction for violating the rules of work release or probation that is different than the sanction sought in the revocation petition(s) that is (are) the subject of a final revocation hearing.