All essential contractual elements were present in the premarital agreement with or without exhibits identifying excluded property.
In re R.L. No. 18A-JC-2927, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 29, 2019).
Juvenile court erred when it failed to dismiss those claims made by DCS in its 2018 CHINS petition which had already been litigated or which could have been litigated in the 2017 CHINS.
Kelly v. State, No. 18S-CR-585, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 22, 2019).
Trial court properly allowed the State to present evidence of defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence during trial because defendant opened the door to rebuttal of his defense that he had no knowledge of the drug deal and was an unwitting participant.
Lacey v. State, No. 18A-CR-2623, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 23, 2019).
The imposition of a thirteen-year habitual offender enhancement was improper because the two prior out-of-state Level 3 felony convictions had to be treated as Level 6 felony convictions under the Indiana statute in force at the time (February 16, 2017). The legislature amended the definition of a “Level 6 felony” for purposes of the habitual offender enhancement effective March 8, 2018.
In re L.S., No. 18A-JT-2881, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 21, 2019).
Drug test results do not fall under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay.