To prove constructive possession, the State must demonstrate that the person has (1) the capability to maintain dominion and control over the item; and (2) the intent to maintain dominion and control over it.
Hartman v. BigInch Fabricators & Construction Holding Co., Inc., No. 20S-PL-00618, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 28, 2021).
Parties’ freedom to contract may permit “minority” and “marketability” discounts for valuing corporate shares even for shares in a closed-market transaction.
Smith v. State, 20A-CR-1014, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 20, 2021).
In a trial in absentia, it is not error for the trial court to inform the jury that defendant was personally notified of the trial date.
Madden v. State, 20A-CR-196, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2021).
Convictions for Level 2 Kidnapping for Ransom and Level 5 Kidnapping, based on one removal, violate double jeopardy. In addition, convictions for both criminal confinement and kidnapping, both enhanced based on a demand for ransom, and are so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction,” violate double jeopardy.
Hackner v. State, 19A-CR-1577, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2021).
A dying victim’s non-verbal identification of the perpetrator, in response to an officer’s question, is a question credibility and not admissibility. The weight to be given identification evidence and any determination of whether it is satisfactory and trustworthy is a function of the trier of facts.