Refusal to remove one’s hands from his/her pockets when instructed by a law enforcement officer, when the pockets clearly contain items, satisfies the “forcibly resist” element of resisting law enforcement.
Chapman v. State, No. 19A-CR-1636, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 31, 2020).
Confinement, for purposes of the time-period set forth in Indiana Rule of Evidence 609(b) (Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years), does not include probation.
Scott v. State, No. 19A-CR-516, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 31, 2020).
Conduct by a defendant designed to procure a witness’s absence from trial is sufficient, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence, to forfeit his/her right to confrontation. In the context of obstruction of justice, coercion requires only that the defendant indicate, explicitly or implicitly, a consequence – not a particular kind of consequence, such as a positive or negative one.
In re TPR of C.D., No. 19A-JT-1549, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 28, 2020).
Parents no longer have a fundamental right to consent to the adoption of child after their parental rights were terminated; the question of the proper adoptive home for child is a question for the adoption court.
Hess v. Novicki, No. 19A-CT-1416, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 31, 2020).
Trial court has the legal authority to rule on the merits of a TR 60(B) motion to supplement/modify an agreed permanent injunction.