“Under the circumstances of this case, Indiana Code section 31-19-11-1(c) regrettably bars an adoption that, to all appearances, would otherwise be in I.B. and W.B.’s best interests. But that does not make the statute unconstitutional as applied, because its prohibitions are rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose and do not discriminate against a suspect class. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment on both adoption petitions and remand…”
State v. Zerbe, No. 49A05-1410-MI-463, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 29, 2015).
Indiana Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORA) requirement for out-of-state sex offender registrants to register in Indiana for the period required by the other jurisdiction was enacted before defendant moved to Indiana, and therefore was not unconstitutional ex post facto law.
Zamani v. State, No. 32A05-1406-CR-264, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 29, 2015).
Since competence to stand trial had been at issue throughout the case, defendant failed to show good cause for belated request (five days before trial) to assert an insanity defense.
Elonis v. United States, No. 13-983, 575 U.S. ___ (June 1, 2015).
Federal crime of transmitting threats in interstate or foreign commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), requires some heightened awareness that the communication will be perceived as threatening; mere negligence on that point is insufficient.
Griffith v. State, No. 48S02-1501-CR-10, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., June 2, 2015).
Under Indiana Evidence Rule 613(b), extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement may be admitted before or after a witness is given “opportunity to explain or deny” the statement as the Rule requires, but confronting the witness first remains the “preferred method.”