Non-disparagement clause in divorce decree amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech because it forbade the parties from making disparaging remarks about the other when outside the presence of the child.
Strack v. State, No. 22S-CR-137, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 2, 2022).
At sentencing, a criminal defendant who enters an open guilty plea has a right to allocution distinct from the right to present evidence on his or her behalf.
Reyes v. State, No. 21A-CR-2646, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 6, 2022).
Because Indiana Jury Rule 26(a) affords trial courts the option to give final instructions before or after closing arguments, a court can do either without abusing its discretion.
Ramirez v. State, No. 21S-CR-373, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 27, 2022).
The Indiana Trial Rules do not require the requesting party to state a specific need for copies. Instead, the requesting party need only describe the item “with reasonable particularity” and “specify a reasonable time, place, and manner” for copying the item. To the extent a local rule conflicts with said mandate, the local rule is void. Moreover, when a defendant moves for a continuance not required by statute, the trial court must evaluate and compare the parties’ diverse interests that would be impacted by altering the schedule.
Cole v. Cole, No. 21A-MI-2415, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 28, 2022).
Under the Hague Convention, interests of children in matters relating to their custody are best served when decisions are made in the child’s country of habitual residence. Determination of a child’s habitual residence is fact-intensive and varies with the circumstances of each case.