The plain language of Ind. Code § 35-38-2-1.8 does not grant, or even address, the trial court’s authority to modify the conditions of probation upon a defendant’s motion.
Criminal
Nielson v. State, No. 24A-CR-2295, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 27, 2025).
The invited-error doctrine applies only when a party challenging a trial-court action affirmatively requested the action as part of a deliberate, well-informed trial strategy.
Sanchez v. State, No. 24A-CR-802, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 15, 2025).
Altice, C.J. Jose L. Lopez Sanchez, charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI), brings this interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s denial of his request to compel the discovery of police reports related to his criminal prosecution. He contends that the trial court erred in determining that the Access to Public Records Act (APRA), Ind. Code […]
White v. State, No. 24A-CR-2592, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 25, 2025).
Our Supreme Court’s double jeopardy analysis in Powell applies where the question is whether the State has alleged or shown discrete, prosecutable acts under identical statutory language, and our Supreme Court’s analysis in Wadle applies where the question is whether the State has alleged or used the same evidence to show violations of different statutory language. However, in certain circumstances, both Wadle and Powell may apply.
Peters v. Quakenbush, No. 25S-PL-152, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 19, 2025).
If a person “is required to register as a sex or violent offender in any jurisdiction,” that person must “register for the period required by the other jurisdiction or the period described in this section, whichever is longer.” I.C. § 11-8-8-19(f). This applies to a person residing, working, or attending school in Indiana even though that person committed no offense in the other jurisdiction that imposed the triggering registration requirement.