Sudden heat is characterized as anger, rage, resentment, or terror sufficient to obscure the reason of an ordinary person, preventing deliberation and premeditation, excluding malice, and rendering a person incapable of cool reflection. Here, the State carried its evidentiary burden in negating the mitigating factor and voluntary manslaughter requirement of “sudden heat,” and Defendant’s murder conviction and LWOP sentence.
In re K.V., LP, No. 22A-JC-987, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 13, 2023).
DCS was not required to make a reasonable effort to reunify children with foster parents when it was not in the children’s best interest. Foster parents were not entitled to intervene in CHINS case.
Easterday v. Everhart, No. 22A-DC-1510, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2023).
The trial court erred when it based the modification of child’s legal custody solely on religion; totally prohibiting father from discussing religion with child violates his First Amendment right to free speech.
Passarelli v. State, No. 22A-CR-1116, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 9, 2023).
The objective component of self-defense, as adopted by our courts, is analyzed from the standpoint of an ordinary “reasonable person.” The question being presented to the fact-finder is whether an ordinary reasonable person would have responded with deadly force if confronted with the same circumstances that defendant confronted.
Goston v. State, No. 23S-CT-5, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 9, 2023).
Trial court acted within its discretion to consider defendants’ motion for summary judgment after the deadline set in the case management order. The local rule on case management orders should be read in harmony with the Trial Rules.