While domestic violence is of general public interest, where the allegations concern private conduct by private individuals and attract no public interest on their own, the anti-SLAPP defense for a defamation claim does not apply.
Bojko v. Anonymous Physician, No. 23S-CT-343, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 9, 2024).
Trial courts have no authority to redact or otherwise exclude the evidence a party submits to a medical review panel.
Smith v. State, No. 23S-MI-345, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 30, 2024).
When the State fails to meet its burden at a forfeiture hearing, the trial court must order the money released to the person to whom it belongs. When the money was seized from the person contesting the forfeiture, the court will release the money to that person. But when someone else contests the forfeiture, that party must produce evidence showing the money belongs to them. The court must then determine whether that person has established ownership. If so, the court must order the money returned to that person. But if that person has not established ownership, the court must order the money returned to the person from whom the money was seized.
Converging Capital, LLC v. Steglich, No. 23A-CC-2854, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 1, 2024).
There is no limitations period for the initiation of proceedings supplemental.
Lane v. State, No. 24S-CR-150, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 2, 2024).
Sentencing courts should consider the full range of available options, including community-based rehabilitation programs, for defendants who commit low-level offenses but pose little continuing danger to others. However, to ensure public safety, courts should consider extended jail sentences for low-level offenders with a history of violence who pose a continuing threat to others. Reviewing courts will defer to a trial court’s considered assessment that a person is too dangerous to receive anything but a lengthy executed sentence.