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.
McNeil v. Anonymous Hospital, No. 22A-CC-2209, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 5, 2023).
Ind. Code § 31-33-6-1(b) represents a deliberate legislative policy determination that notwithstanding the reporting immunity provided under subsection (a), the standard of care for qualified healthcare providers under the Medical Malpractice Act applies to child abuse reporting.