Where defendant filed a motion for indigent counsel but failed to appear at a hearing to consider that motion, trial court improperly denied his motion and required that he proceed pro se without giving sufficient warning about the perils of self-representation, and by not inquiring as to his indigency.
State v. Serrano, No. 19A-CR-305, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 13, 2019).
Under the new-crime exception to the rule excluding evidence obtained from an illegal warrantless search, if a defendant’s response is itself a new and distinct crime, then evidence of the new crime is admissible notwithstanding the prior illegal search.
Kenworth of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Seventy-Seven Ltd., No. 19S-PL-37, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 12, 2019).
“Under the equitable estoppel doctrine, a party’s conduct—even relating to the repair of goods—may toll a contractually agreed-upon limitations period when that conduct is of a sufficient affirmative character to prevent inquiry, elude investigation, or mislead the other party into inaction.”
Hernandez-Velazquez v. Hernandez, No. 18A-DR-3109, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 14, 2019).
Trial court properly set aside property conveyances under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act to effectuate the division of marital assets during a divorce.
State v. Timbs, No. 27S04-1702-MI-70, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 28, 2019).
The Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines places not only an instrumentality limit on use-based in rem fines, but also a proportionality one. Based on the totality of the circumstances, if the punitive value of the forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the underlying offenses and the owner’s culpability for the property’s criminal use, the fine is unconstitutionally excessive.