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.
Criminal
Heitz v. State, No. 24A-CR-802, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 6, 2025).
When a trial court’s local practice conflicts with Criminal Rule 4(C), the local practice is invalid, and delays arising from noncompliance with such practices cannot be charged to defendants.
Maze v. State, No. 24A-CR-2596, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 28, 2025).
When determining whether to appoint counsel, trial courts must consider three distinct items—assets, income, and necessary expenses in calculating a defendant’s ability to pay. If the parties fail to provide the information, courts themselves must make inquiries calculated to bring out the necessary evidence.
Qualls v. State, No. 24A-CR-131, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 15, 2025).
Unless there is new evidence or information discovered to warrant additional charges, the potential for prosecutorial vindictiveness is too great for courts to allow the State to bring additional charges against a defendant who successfully moves for a mistrial, thus creating the presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness.
Kelly v. State, No. 25S-PC-108, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 30, 2025).
While the Indiana Rules of Post-Conviction Remedies require appellate screening before filing a successive petition for post-conviction relief, those rules do not require appellate screening before amending a successive petition.