Convictions based on the same subsection of the rape statute that are mutually exclusive criminal acts — forcible sexual intercourse and forcible other sexual conduct — do not violate double jeopardy.
Expert Pool Builders, LLC v. Vangundy, No. 23S‐PL‐171, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 2, 2024).
A party’s opposition to the motion for default judgment preserved its challenge for appeal and it was not required to also file a T.R. 60(B) motion.
Hoback v. State, No. 23A-CR-411, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 20, 2023).
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.