Our Supreme Court’s double jeopardy analysis in Powell applies where the question is whether the State has alleged or shown discrete, prosecutable acts under identical statutory language, and our Supreme Court’s analysis in Wadle applies where the question is whether the State has alleged or used the same evidence to show violations of different statutory language. However, in certain circumstances, both Wadle and Powell may apply.
Appeals
Heitz v. State, No. 24A-CR-802, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 6, 2025).
When a trial court’s local practice conflicts with Criminal Rule 4(C), the local practice is invalid, and delays arising from noncompliance with such practices cannot be charged to defendants.
City of Boonville v. Anderson, No. 24A-PL-1905, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 28, 2025).
T.R. 41(A)(2) allows a trial court to condition a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal “upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” Trial court was well within its discretion not to impose any terms and conditions upon motion for voluntary dismissal.
Maze v. State, No. 24A-CR-2596, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 28, 2025).
When determining whether to appoint counsel, trial courts must consider three distinct items—assets, income, and necessary expenses in calculating a defendant’s ability to pay. If the parties fail to provide the information, courts themselves must make inquiries calculated to bring out the necessary evidence.
Bowen v. Bowen, No. 24A-DN-1655, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 30, 2025).
Pension payments that accrue during the DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Plan) period constitute divisible marital property to the extent they were earned during the marriage.