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.
McCoy v. State, 20A-CR-723, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2020).
Absent evidence that comments rose to the level of unreasonable noise, loud criticism of government action does not constitute disorderly conduct.
Brown v. Ind. Dept. of Environmental Management, No. 20S-MI-609, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 21, 2020).
Vacates the portion of the Court of Appeals decision that makes the broad statement that law-of-the-case doctrine “is applicable only when an appellate court determines a legal issue, not a trial court.”
H.H. v. S. H., No. 20A-PO-926, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 13, 2020).
Ind. Code § 34-26-5-9(f) does not require that the trial court make a particularized finding to support a deviation from the stated two-year term when issuing a protective order.
In re Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.R., No. 20S-JT-63, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 15, 2020).
Drug test records are exceptions to the hearsay rule under the records of a regularly conducted business activity (Ind. Rule Evid. 803(6)).