Pursuant to C.R. 4, when docket entries are absent or missing regarding the reason for a delay, the delay is not chargeable to the defendant.
Murphy v. Cook, No. 23A-SC-1614, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 20, 2023).
Courts should be mindful of the provisions and requirements of T.R. 64(A) with respect to issuing a body attachment, including the provision that body attachments expire 180 days after issuance and the expiration date must appear on the face of the writ.
D.H. v. A.C., No. 23A-JT-1369, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 21, 2023).
If a child was conceived as a result of “an act of rape,” the victim-parent can seek to terminate the rights of the perpetrator-parent. “Act of rape” is defined in statute as (1) “an act described in” the rape statute or (2) an act of child molesting (where the victim is under fourteen) involving deadly force, a deadly weapon, serious injury, or drugging.
Sloan v. State, No. 22A-CR-2250, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 29, 2023).
A probable cause affidavit need not exclude every hypothesis of innocence to establish sufficient probable cause for the warrant; rather, it only needs to demonstrate to the issuing judge that, given all the circumstances, there was a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be found in a particular place. Moreover, facts establishing illegal internet activity associated with a particular IP address, and assignment of the IP address at the time in question to a particular internet subscriber at a specific physical address, provide a nexus between the illegal activity and the physical address sufficient to establish probable cause for a warrant to search the residence at the physical address.
Kendall v. State, No. 23A-CR-1473, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 29, 2023).
The crime of identity deception does not require that the identifying information must coincide with any real person or an existing human being. Additionally, the statute governing identity deception includes elements not contained in the statute governing false informing and thus, does not violate Article 1, Section 16, Indiana’s Proportionality Clause.