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.
Bowen v. Bowen, No. 24A-DN-1655, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 30, 2025).
Pension payments that accrue during the DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Plan) period constitute divisible marital property to the extent they were earned during the marriage.
Thomas v. Valpo Motors, Inc., No. 24S-PL-286, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 13, 2025).
For purposes of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, in claims alleging breach of implied warranty, a buyer need only show to the satisfaction of the factfinder that the seller had “a reasonable opportunity to cure” its failure to comply with its warranty obligations. The buyer can meet this burden of proof by showing that he explicitly asked the seller to cure (i.e., repair, replace, or refund) or that he notified the seller of the purported defect and the seller proposed no remedy in response.
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.