The trial court should have withdrawn admissions under T.R. 36(B) because of litigant’s abuse of T.R. 36.
Pugh v. State, No. 49A02-1506-CR-482, __N.E.3D__ (Ind. Ct. App., May 10, 2016).
Single larceny rule does not apply where robbery of husband, wife and daughter were distinct transactions; and continuous crime doctrine only applies where defendant has been charged multiple times with the same continuous offense.
Osborne v. State, No. 29A02-1511-CR-1931, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., May 12, 2016).
The “community caretaking function of police officers may apply to justify a traffic stop where the officer does not otherwise observe a traffic violation or have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot,” but did not apply in this instance.
Simons v. State, No. 20A03-1512-CR-2158, __N.E. 3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., May 13, 2016).
Indiana statute requires sentencing judge to advise defendant of his earliest release date and maximum possible release date, and although such failure was harmless error in this case, the facts of another case might not lead to the same harmless error result.
In re F.S., No. 13A01-1505-JM-363, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 12, 2016).
DCS is not required to conduct an interview with a child as part of its assessment, but the trial court may issue such an order if the parent does not consent and DCS shows good cause on the record supporting its request for an interview.