Defendant is entitled to raise a “Romeo and Juliet” defense under Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(e) if he has not committed a prior sex offense against a person other than the victim.
Appeals
Curtis v. State, No. 49A02-1512-CR-2293, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 22, 2016).
If a person has a fair and reasonable foundation for believing that he or she has a right to be present on the property, there is no criminal trespass. If a person is not given a reasonable period of time to comply with a request to leave the premises, then there is no criminal trespass.
In re A.H., No. 49A04-1601-JC-42, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 18, 2016).
A CHINS adjudication is inappropriate when a parent is willing to provide care to the child without the coercive intervention of the court.
J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. v. Guardianship of Zak, No. 45A03-1506-CT-670, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 18, 2016).
Evidence of post-accident investigations is not automatically excluded as a subsequent remedial measure.
Henriquez v. State, No. 20A04-1510-CR-1841, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 9, 2016).
Ind. Code § 35-38-1-1(b) requires trial courts to advise a defendant of the earliest and latest possible release dates, but trial courts are not equipped to make this specific determination. Defendant was not harmed by the trial court’s failure to estimate the dates.