“City failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the challenged act or omission was a policy decision made by consciously balancing risks and benefits. Thus, the City was not entitled to summary judgment on the question of discretionary function immunity under the [Indiana Tort Claims Act].”
Community Health Network v. Bails, No. 49A05-1512-PL-2059, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 7, 2016).
Absent fraud, an agreed judgment is not appealable.
Eckelbarger v. State, No. 90S02-1603-CR-157, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., March 29, 2016).
Consecutive 16-year sentences for both delivering and manufacturing methamphetamine were inappropriate where evidence of manufacturing was seized pursuant to search warrant for State-sponsored delivery offenses.
State v. Taylor, No. 46S04-1509-CR-552, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., March 30, 2016).
Police eavesdropping on attorney-client conference was reprehensible and presumptively prejudicial, but under the circumstances did not necessarily warrant suppression of all testimony from officers who invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege about the eavesdropping. Presumption of prejudice was rebuttable if State could prove beyond reasonable doubt that each witness’s anticipated testimony was untainted by the misconduct and do so without implicating witnesses’ Fifth Amendment privilege.
Fisher v. State, No. 20A03-1509-CR-1373, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 31, 2016).
Restitution order was proper, despite plea agreement’s silence about restitution; agreement implicitly incorporated I.C. § 35-48-4-17, which mandates restitution in methamphetamine cleanup cases.