Trial Rule 26(B)(3) provides adequate guidance for the trial court to determine—on a case-by-case basis—whether a police report is protectible work product; overruling State ex rel. Keaton v. Cir. Ct. of Rush Cnty., 475 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 1985).
Criminal
Newcomb, Jr. v. State, No. 22A-PC-318, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 24, 2022).
A miscarriage of justice, including when a person is convicted of an offense they did not commit, can be corrected within the confines of post-conviction relief.
Saucerman v. State, No. 22A-CR-501, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 17, 2022).
A trial court’s failure to ensure that a probationer who admits to a probation violation has received the advisements as required under Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(e) constitutes a fundamental violation of the probationer’s due process rights.
Gates v. State, No. 22A-CR-247, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2022).
The intimidation statute is not unconstitutionally vague.
A.W. v. State, No. 22A-JV-150, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2022).
The Indiana Supreme Court reiterated in Wadle, that an offense is factually included when the charging instrument alleges that the means used to commit the crime charged include all of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense. Here, juvenile’s adjudications for possession of a machine gun and dangerous possession of a firearm were factually included and thus, entry of judgment on both counts was a violation of double jeopardy.