The trial court’s order was not clearly erroneous and should not have been set aside by the Court of Appeals.
Blattert, Jr. v. State, No. 21A-CR-1082, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 15, 2022).
Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply to child abuse; protecting children from physical abuse is a compelling governmental interest and prosecution is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. To that end, Indiana offers the parental privilege as a defense to battery and similar crimes rather than completely banning the practice of corporal punishments. This accommodates religious practices which require reasonable corporal punishment.
Ebert v. Illinois Casualty Co., No. 22S-PL-8, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 16, 2022).
Adopts the efficient and predominant cause analysis in determining whether allegations are excluded under an insurance policy.
Goston v. State, No. 21A- CT-2484, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 17, 2022).
The DCS Notice Statute (Ind. Code §31-33-18-4) does not confer a private cause of action.
Russell v. State, No. 21A-CR-2313, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 20, 2022).
There are two avenues for the use of home detention following conviction: 1) home detention as a condition of probation under Ind. Code § 35-38-2.5; and 2) home detention as a direct commitment to Community Corrections under Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6. A trial court must enter a home detention order when a defendant is sentenced to home detention as a condition of probation.