On rehearing, reverses that part of the CHINS court’s order that discharged the parties and terminated the CHINS case and remands this case for further proceedings consistent with the CHINS statutes, including any appropriate services for Mother.
White v. Canal Ins. Co., No. 71A03-1602-CT-270, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2016).
As a matter of law, service on out-of-state defendant at the home address provided to the police at the time of the time of the accident and service on the defendant company through the Indiana Secretary of State was consistent with due process and reasonably calculated to inform the defendants that an action had been instituted against them.
D.A. v. State, No. 48S02-1604-MI-183, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 1, 2016).
“Under the plain language of Indiana Code section 35-38-9-4, civil forfeitures are not included within the “conviction records” that may be expunged.”
Lynn v. State, No. 49A05-1601-CR-4, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 23, 2016).
Although the inclusion of affirmation language in the jury instruction was not fundamental error, the best practice is for trial courts to redact such language from the pattern jury instructions.
Burnell v. State, No. 29S02-1512-CR-707, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 23, 2016).
A refusal to submit to a chemical test occurs when the conduct of the motorist is such that a reasonable person in the officer’s position would be justified in believing the motorist was capable of refusal and manifested an unwillingness to submit to the test.