The trial court had the authority to order a visitation order with stepfather, even though a different court had entered an order adjudicating support, custody and parenting time with the biological father.
Levy v. Jackson, No. 29A02-1407-CT-482, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 11, 2015).
Because the trial court’s order sets out the evidence in favor of the verdict for plaintiff but does not mention any of the evidence in favor of a verdict for defendant, it failed to comply with Trial Rule 59(J), and the jury verdict was reinstated.
In re I.B., No. 82S05-1502-AD-63, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 11, 2015).
“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.