In prosecution for burglary and attempted rape, Defendant’s alleged “peeping” at another home in the same neighborhood 56 days later was inadmissible because it was not “strikingly similar” to the charged offense; but conclusive DNA evidence rendered the error harmless.
Gibson v. State, No. 39S05-1509-CR-517, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 31, 2015).
Pulling the victim to the ground during the course of a battery was insufficient to establish D-felony criminal confinement by removal under I.C. § 35-42-3-3(a)(2).
Alkhalidi v. Ind. Dept. of Correction, No. 77A01-1406-SC-278, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2015).
The failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be treated as procedural error, not a jurisdictional defect. Because exhaustion of remedies is not an element of plaintiff’s action, the exhaustion requirement is more appropriately considered an affirmative defense and it is the defendant’s burden to prove.
Stanke v. Swickard, No. 29A02-1412-DR-862, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 31, 2015).
Defendant’s due process rights were violated and the trial court erred in finding defendant in contempt when the motion for contempt citation did not contain detailed factual allegations, clearly and distinctly set forth the facts alleged to constitute contempt, or specify with reasonable certainty the time and place of the facts supporting the allegations of contempt.
Anderson v. Gaudin, No. 07S01-1505-PL-284, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 1, 2015).
“[U]nder the Home Rule Act, boards of county commissioners are authorized to amend a fire protection district, even if such amendment dissolves the district.”