As a matter of law, service on out-of-state defendant at the home address provided to the police at the time of the time of the accident and service on the defendant company through the Indiana Secretary of State was consistent with due process and reasonably calculated to inform the defendants that an action had been instituted against them.
Appeals
Lynn v. State, No. 49A05-1601-CR-4, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 23, 2016).
Although the inclusion of affirmation language in the jury instruction was not fundamental error, the best practice is for trial courts to redact such language from the pattern jury instructions.
Pinner v. State, No. 49A02-1511-CR-2036, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 24, 2016).
Mere possession of a firearm, which is legal, cannot produce reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry stop.
Compton v. State, No. 82A01-1511-CR-1997, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 24, 2016).
Defendant was not deprived due process when the media was allowed to tweet live updates of his criminal trial from the courtroom.
Lacy v. State, No. 18A04-1510-CR-1757, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., August 16, 2016).
The “lawful purpose” exception in the identity deception statute at Ind. Code § 35-43-5-3.5 is an affirmative defense and not a material element of the crime.