Although proof of the violation of a safety regulation creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence, it is a question for the jury whether the violation may be excused or justified because the actions might be reasonably expected by a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law.
Bowman v. State, No. 21S04-1510-CR-604, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 26, 2016).
Despite a second baggie of evidence not being tested to prove it was heroin after a first bag of heroin was tested, the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction.
Sanford v. State, No. 49S05-1604-PC-210, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 27, 2016).
Under the unique circumstances of this case, defendant has permission to file a belated Notice of Appeal under Post-Conviction Rule 2 because the defendant’s failure to file a timely Notice of Appeal was not his fault, and the defendant has been diligent in requesting permission to file a belated Notice of Appeal under the Rule.
Cowans v. State, No. __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 27, 2016). __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 27, 2016).
When being pulled over by the police, a driver does not have full discretion to choose to stop anywhere, but with “adequate justification” might have some discretion to choose the location of a stop. Whether the driver exercises limited discretion in choosing a place to stop should be a question of fact for the jury.
Suggs v. State, No. 02S03-1508-CR-510, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 28, 2016).
The sister of a brother who was once married to the defendant’s aunt is not a “family or household member” within the meaning of the statute elevating misdemeanor battery to a level 6 felony.