Police officer’s statement in internal-affairs investigation was inadmissible because it was given under “Garrity notice” that it “cannot be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings” except perjury or obstruction of justice. Statement, and its evidentiary fruits, should therefore be suppressed.
Allen v. State, No. 49A05-1410-CR-501, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Oct. 14, 2015).
Even though defendant had notified the trial court of his incarceration on other charges at a pre-trial conference, he was not entitled to discharge under Criminal Rule 4(C). All but 363 days of delay resulted from defendant’s failure to appear for trial when defense counsel failed to obtain a transport order to secure defendant’s attendance at trial as instructed, and was chargeable to defendant. Nor did the delay violate defendant’s constitutional speedy-trial rights.
Herron v. State, No. 49A04-1504-CR-149, ___ N.E.3d ___(Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 14, 2015).
Warrant for drawing intoxicated driver’s blood was invalid for lack of probable cause, where officer’s probable-cause affidavit marked an “X” next to certain boilerplate language, but wrote nothing in the corresponding blanks to provide specific facts to make an individualized showing as to defendant.
Stibbens v. Foster, No. 18A02-1410-PL-750, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 14, 2015).
A “devisee” for will contests includes only devisees of the will being challenged and devisees of the next will in line who would directly benefit if the challenged will were set aside. To award attorney’s fees in a will contest, “First, the claimant seeking fees must prove that some or all of her claims were made in good faith and with just cause. The trial court must then make a preliminary determination as to which of the claims meet this standard. Then, the claimant is required to come forward with evidence showing the amount of attorney fees expended only for the claims that meet the statutory standard.”
Masters v. Masters, No. 02S04-1504-DR-156, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 16, 2015).
The proper standard of review under the Family Law Arbitration Act is the clearly erroneous standard prescribed by Trial Rule 52(A).