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.
Ind. Land Trust Co. v. XL Investment Properties, LLC, No. 20S-MI-62, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 27, 2020).
Auditor gave adequate notice reasonably calculated to inform property owner of the impending tax sale of the property by first sending notice by first class and certified mail to the address listed on the deed for the property, and then publishing notice. The auditor was not required to search its internal records for a better tax sale notice address.
Temme v. State, 20A-CR-275, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2020).
Because Indiana has a statutory scheme for the award of credit time, the equitable, common law doctrine of “credit for time erroneously at liberty,” does not apply.
Watson v. State, 20A-CR-1142, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 21, 2020).
While Criminal Rule 4(C) does not apply to habitual-offender retrials, the constitutional right to a speedy trial does.
Sargent v. State, 20A-CR-1142, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2020).
While participation in a Purposeful Incarceration Program (PIP) may lead to a subsequent sentence modification, a request for a participation recommendation is not, in itself, a request for modification under Indiana Code Section 35-18-1-17.