Under the Indiana Constitution, the question of whether an alleged mistake of law is reasonable under Article 1, Section 11, requires a determination of whether the alleged mistake of the law is reasonable under Litchfield.
Criminal
Mitchell v. State, No. 25A-CR-1322, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 6, 2025).
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.
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.