The trial court properly denied defendant’s request to question a juror after the member divulged information relevant for voir dire. Defendant was convicted by a fair and impartial jury; juror disclosed relevant information voluntarily at her earliest opportunity and then assured the parties that she could still be a juror.
Heckard v. State, No. 18A-CR-1376, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 11, 2019).
The evaluation of whether the continuous crime doctrine applies is distinct from the question of whether the continuous crime doctrine has been violated.
Linares v. El Tacarajo, No. 18A-CT-276, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 8, 2019).
Using the Goodwin foreseeability analysis, an automobile salvage business did not have a duty to a patron of a mobile food truck serving food in its parking lot that exploded and caused injury to the patron.
Solomon v. State, No. 18A-CR-2041, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 31, 2019).
Defendant does not have a constitutional right to possess marijuana and Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11 does not violate Article 1, Section 1, of the Indiana Constitution as applied to him.
In re D.H, No. 18A-JT-1861, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 1, 2019).
The trial court’s termination of parental rights order must be reversed due to the State’s failure to give Mother the due process imparted to her by Ind. Code 31-35-2-4.5(d) (the right to have DCS move to dismiss a termination petition when it has not provided her with services that were substantial and material in relation to the reunification plan).