When a defendant failed to remove his hands from his pockets and sit down, there was insufficient evidence of physical efforts by the defendant to resist law enforcement and therefore the “forcibly” element of the offense of resisting law enforcement could not be satisfied.
Williams v. State, 20A-CR-1209, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 12, 2020).
Indiana’s theft statute does not criminalize the taking of lost or mislaid property.
R.W. v. J.W., No. 19A-PO-2697, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 13, 2020).
The existence of an emergency order of protection issued in Illinois in favor of one party did not require the trial court to transfer the other party’s Indiana petition for protective order to Illinois under Ind. Code § 34-26-5-6(4).
Larkin v. State, 19A-CR-2705, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 09, 2020).
For the jury to receive an instruction on alleged lesser-included offense, the offense must either be an inherently or factually included offense to the principal charge and there must be a serious evidentiary dispute regarding the element that distinguishes the lesser offense from the principal charge. Moreover, a defendant must receive fair notice of the charge against which he must defend at trial.
Jones v. State, 20A-CR-664, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 2, 2020).
To prevent disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity, it is not enough to show that the CI’s identity might be revealed. Rather, it is the State’s burden to prove that the CI’s identity would be revealed as a result of a face-to-face interview.