Ind. Code § 31-32-5-1 mandates that before consent may be established for purposes of a blood draw, a juvenile must be advised, and provided the opportunity, to have meaningful consultation with their parent/guardian.
Criminal
Mills v. State, No. 22A-CR-591, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 10, 2022).
The face mask requirement imposed during the global COVID pandemic was a reasonable limitation on the right to confront witnesses, designed to further the public policy of ensuring the safety of everyone in the courtroom.
Smith v. State, No. 22A-CR-00364, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 25, 2022).
Prosecuting attorneys have broad discretion to bargain with a defendant in resolving criminal charges through a pretrial diversion program. But once the State enters into a valid diversion agreement, it may not unilaterally revoke the agreement based only on buyer’s remorse.
T.D. v. State, No. 22A-CR-00364, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2022).
A delinquency adjudication is void and should be set aside when the trial court accepts an admission without inquiring whether juvenile knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived hi/hers statutory and constitutional rights as required by the juvenile waiver statute, Ind. Code § 31-32-5-1.
McQuinn v. State, No. 21A-CR-1637, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 19, 2022).
An appellate opinion based upon review of sufficiency of the evidence will rarely, if ever, be an appropriate basis for a jury instruction. Moreover, the personal jury waiver requirement is required in the second phase of a bifurcated trial.