Protective order petitioner has a burden of showing that “domestic or family violence has occurred” and that respondent “represents a credible threat to the safety” of the petitioner or petitioner’s child. Trial courts need only determine whether the petitioner has made the requisite showings by a preponderance of the evidence.
Hessler v. State, No. 22A-CR-989, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 26, 2023).
Because the new substantive double jeopardy framework established in Wadle constituted a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions, it applies retroactively to cases that were not yet final at the time our Supreme Court adopted Wadle. Because Wadle replaced the common-law double jeopardy rules, the common law rule that an offense cannot be enhanced based on the same injury that established another offense for which the defendant had already been punished, is no longer applicable.
Gierek v. Anonymous 1, No. 22A-CT-1225, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 14, 2023).
The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to grant plaintiffs’ motions to certify a class as a preliminary determination under the Medical Malpractice Act.
Randall v. Woodson, No. 22A-PL-2830, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 19, 2023).
Social Security Administration has exclusive authority over the issues of benefit misuse by representative payees and over the recovery of those misused funds; a trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.
Owen v. State, No. 21S-LW-333, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 8, 2023).
The record reflects that the statutory aggravators were supported by sufficient evidence and the jury was properly instructed; defendant was properly sentenced to life without parole.