A trial court’s grant of a directed verdict for the defendant under Trial Rule 50 acts as an acquittal on that count and bars the State from amending the charge and a retrial.
Appeals
Howard v. State, No. 18A-CR-1830, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 30, 2019).
The trial court abused its discretion when it permitted the State to amend the information two business days before the start of the trial as it did not give defendant a reasonable opportunity to prepare for and defend against the new counts.
Cavanaugh’s Sports Bar & Eatery, Ltd. v. Porterfield, No. 18A-CT-1814, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 30, 2019).
Bar failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not owe patron a duty to protect him from criminal activity in its parking lot; the altercation occurred immediately after the Saturday night/Sunday morning crowd had been herded out of the bar at closing time and the bar had a history of reported incidents that gave it reason to contemplate further such incidents in its own parking lot.
Dunham’s Athleisure Corp. v. Shepherd, No. 18A-PL-2892, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 1, 2019).
Trial court improperly denied summary judgment to firearm seller because the seller is immune from liability under Ind. Code 34-12-3-3.
Freeman v. Thompson, No. 18A-SC-2718, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 6, 2019).
Magistrate is entitled to absolute judicial immunity for her report, even if erroneously made, of attorney’s alleged possession of a firearm inside the courthouse.