Our Supreme Court’s double jeopardy analysis in Powell applies where the question is whether the State has alleged or shown discrete, prosecutable acts under identical statutory language, and our Supreme Court’s analysis in Wadle applies where the question is whether the State has alleged or used the same evidence to show violations of different statutory language. However, in certain circumstances, both Wadle and Powell may apply.
Peters v. Quakenbush, No. 25S-PL-152, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 19, 2025).
If a person “is required to register as a sex or violent offender in any jurisdiction,” that person must “register for the period required by the other jurisdiction or the period described in this section, whichever is longer.” I.C. § 11-8-8-19(f). This applies to a person residing, working, or attending school in Indiana even though that person committed no offense in the other jurisdiction that imposed the triggering registration requirement.
Thomas v. Foyst, No.25S-MI-148, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 19, 2025).
The only statutory authority for a court to set aside election results is through an election contest. A declaratory judgment action filed before the election did not preserve the candidacy challenge.
In re E.K., No. 24S-JC-300, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 19, 2025).
Courts can amend a CHINS petition on a party’s request to include CHINS allegations not pled by DCS when doing so serves the child’s best interests and does not prejudice the child’s rights. The best practice is for the court and counsel on all sides to determine at the earliest opportunity whether any party might request adjudication under an alternative CHINS category.
State ex rel. Mayhill v. Marion Superior Court 5, No. 25S-OR-90, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 13, 2025).
After the Chief Administrative Officer denied withdrawing a case under TR 53.1, the parties could file an original action asking for a writ to withdraw the case from the trial court judge.