“Although a defendant who pleads guilty to driving while suspended as a habitual traffic violator may not later challenge the plea contending that an underlying offense has been set aside on grounds of procedural error, a defendant may be entitled to relief where an underlying offense has been set aside on grounds of material error.”
Schoettmer v. Wright, No. 49S04-1210-CT-607, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Aug. 27, 2013).
Equitable estoppel can prevent defendant from using the Indiana Tort Claims Act time limit as a defense.
Santelli v. Rahmatullah, No. 49S04-1212-CT-667, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Aug. 28, 2013).
A jury must consider the intentional acts of non-parties in addition to defendant’s alleged negligent acts, but the non-party and defendant are not jointly and severally liable.
Johnson v. State, No. 49A02-1301-CR-28, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 20, 2013).
Rejects arguments that traffic stop, based on officer’s belief vehicle was in violation of the Window Tint Statute, was illegal under the Indiana Constitution or violated an implicit prohibition in the Statute itself of “unbridled discretion” for police to pull over vehicles with window tint.
Walls v. State, No. 55A05-1211-CR-603, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 22, 2013).
Tenants had a sufficient possessory interest in their apartment doors and thresholds and the immediate adjacent areas to request, for criminal trespass purposes, that a person leave those areas and stop banging on their doors.