The affirmative defense of human trafficking does not negate any elements of a prostitution charge; rather, it operates by entirely excusing the culpability for engaging in prostitution. Accordingly, a defendant may properly be assigned the burden to prove the defense by a preponderance of evidence.
Appeals
Mishler v. Union-North United School Corp., No. 23A-MI-1019, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 11, 2024).
The Claims Against Public School Act (“CAPSA”) is not a pre-suit notice law parallel to the ITCA. A court is required to dismiss claims that fail to submit proper notice to the public school.
Hetty, Inc. v. Weems, No. 24A-SC-148, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 14, 2024).
In a small claims matter, defendant was not required to formally plead a nonparty defense.
Tyree v. State, No. 23A-CR-2153, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 14, 2024).
Ind. Code 35-38-4-2(a)(5), which permits the State to appeal “from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence, if the ultimate effect of the order is to preclude further prosecution of one (1) or more counts of an information or indictment,” focuses on the effect of the trial court’s ruling: whether the ruling on the defendant’s motion prevents the State from presenting evidence necessary to prove its case.
In re Adoption of M.J.H., No. 23A-AD-2769, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 10, 2024).
Ind. Code chapter 31-19-5, governing the putative father registry, applies where a mother does not consent to an adoption. The relevance of a mother’s execution of consent to an adoption is merely the timing for her to provide information about a putative father.