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.
Criminal
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.
A.R. v. State, No. 22A-JV-156, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 5, 2022).
While Ind. Code § 31-30-2-3, states that the trial court, on its own motion, may reinstate a jurisdiction over a juvenile after release from DOC, a motion by the prosecution is sufficient. Moreover, Ind. Code § 11-8-8-4.5, which subjects an offender who is at least 14 years age to sex offender registration, applies at the time of registration, not when the delinquent act was committed.
Hayko v. State, No. 21A-CR-2407, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sep. 28, 2022).
Ind. Rule of Evid. 608 sets forth two types of evidence; opinion and reputation. In contrast to reputation evidence, opinion testimony is admissible if rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or to a determination of a fact in issue.