Even though plaintiff had not taken any action in a case for over a decade, because the defendant moved for dismissal under T.R. 41(E) after the plaintiff had resumed prosecution, the trial court improperly dismissed the case.
B.K. and S.K. v. State, No. 23S-JV-344, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 18, 2024).
Because the juvenile restitution statute does not have a judgment lien provision, a juvenile court lacks the authority to enforce a restitution order as a civil judgment lien.
In re I.E., No. 23A-JC-2399, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 24, 2024).
When the permanency plan for a child adjudicated a CHINS provides for appointment of a guardian under Ind. Code 31-34-21-7.7, the filing of a guardianship petition and notice of the petition and hearing are statutory prerequisites for appointment of a permanent guardian. The trial judge cannot “open” the guardianship without a guardianship petition and notice.
Feeman v. State, No. 23A-CR-2503, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 24, 2024).
When a defendant is charged with a crime against another person, the victim’s identity is a material element of the offense that the State must specifically allege in the charging information and then prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Anderson v. State, No. 24A-CR-152, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 24, 2024).
The affirmative defense of human trafficking does not negate any elements of a prostitution charge; rather, it operates by entirely excusing the culpability for engaging in prostitution. Accordingly, a defendant may properly be assigned the burden to prove the defense by a preponderance of evidence.