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.
Criminal
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.
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.