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.
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.