When juvenile defendant’s attorney vigorously argued in favor of placing him on probation and submitted a plan for the juvenile court’s review, the court’s failure to specifically ask juvenile defendant if he wanted to make a statement was not a blatant violation of basic principles, did not pose a potential of substantial harm, and did not deprive him of fundamental due process. However, courts are strongly encouraged to afford juvenile delinquents the opportunity to address the court before final disposition.
Hall v. State, No. 17A-CR-3022, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 1, 2018).
“[W]e need not decide whether there might have been any error in the filing of the petition by the prosecuting attorney instead of the director of community corrections because we hold that any potential error was a procedural, not jurisdictional, error.”
Fairbanks v. State, No. 49A02-1707-CR-1675, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 1, 2018).
The trial court properly admitted evidence that the defendant’s daughter’s death was no accident under Evid. Rule 404(b)’s lack-of-accident purpose, even though the defendant did not affirmatively claim mistake or accident.
Stickrod v. State, No. 79A04-1710-CR-2473, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 3, 2018).
The entry of judgments of convictions for two counts of possession of methamphetamine violated double jeopardy; merging the two convictions at sentencing was insufficient to correct the violation.
In re Z.B. v. Ind. Dept. Child Svcs., No. 18A-JT-318, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 31, 2018).
A CASA has the statutory authority to independently prosecute a petition to terminate parental rights when DCS opposes termination.