While judges can reconsider pretrial suppression rulings, the State is not required to prove constitutional compliance a second time at trial.
Sharon Parsons, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Timothy Parson, et al. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Comp. & Danielle Benjamin, et al., No. 25A-CT-2307, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jun. 22, 2026).
Bound by precedent from our Supreme Court construing similar pollution provisions in insurance policies, we find that because the Crum & Forster policy did not unambiguously identify methanol as a pollutant, the trial court erred in applying the TPPL part to the Parsons’ claims.
Masterson v. State, No. 25A-CR-2176, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 16, 2026).
A probationer’s lack of fault does not bear on whether a violation occurred but only on the sanction imposed.
Burton v. State, No. 25A-CR-2659, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 5, 2026).
The assisting a criminal statute, Indiana Code section 35-44.1-2-5, does not require proof of the assisted party’s interstate flight when the State charges a defendant with having assisted a fugitive from justice.
Adkins v. State, No. 26S-PC-171, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 28, 2026).
Pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, Indiana Code chapter 34-14-1, et seq., not all declaratory judgments are final, appealable orders under Indiana Appellate Rule 2(H)(5), but are reviewable as any other orders, judgments, or decrees.