“[T]he ‘actual evidence’ test . . . is applicable to cases in which there has been an acquittal on one charge and retrial on another charge after a hung jury.”
Oney v. State, No. 49S05-1212-CR-668, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Aug. 28, 2013).
“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.