A criminal contempt proceeding is a trial of a criminal case. Criminal contempt defendants are entitled to the same statutory protections afforded other criminal defendants, including the right to file a notice of insanity defense and obtain the appointment of appropriate experts to testify at the contempt proceedings.
Williams v. State, No. 23S-CR-283, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 19, 2023).
Absent a knowing and voluntary waiver, Ind. Code § 35-38-1-4(a) requires that a defendant must be personally present at the time sentence is pronounced.
Brook v. State, No. 22A-CR-2110, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2023).
When a defendant is charged with a crime elevated based upon a prior infraction, the trial court is not required to bifurcate the proceedings. Because Lorazepam’s status as a legend drug was not an issue of fact—it was identified in court by a name specifically designated as a controlled substance by the Indiana Code—the trial court did not erroneously invade the province of the jury by giving instructions that created a mandatory presumption indicating that the substance was classified as a legend drug.
Crowe v. Savvy IN, LLC, No. 23S-TP-00090, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 11, 2023).
Tax sale notices sent by certified mail to homeowners satisfied due process and Indiana law; the question is not whether the homeowners actually received the notice, but whether the notices were sent “as one desirous of actually informing” the homeowners.
T.D. v. State, No. 23S-JV-110, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 6, 2023).
When a court fails to confirm or secure a waiver as required by the Juvenile Waiver Statute, Trial Rule 60(B) is the appropriate avenue for a juvenile to challenge their agreed delinquency adjudication. Because the judgment is voidable, rather than void, when the Juvenile Waiver Statute is violated, Rule 60(B)(8) is the proper vehicle for a juvenile to collaterally attack their adjudication.