The crime of identity deception does not require that the identifying information must coincide with any real person or an existing human being. Additionally, the statute governing identity deception includes elements not contained in the statute governing false informing and thus, does not violate Article 1, Section 16, Indiana’s Proportionality Clause.
Appeals
Jennings v. Smiley, No. 23A-CT-00303, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 12, 2023).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not allow discovery of defendant’s cell phone; the burden of plaintiff’s proposed phone inspection outweighed its likely benefit in light of defendant’s significant privacy concerns.
Owens v. State, No. 23A-CR-985, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 11, 2023).
For a party to invoke T.R. 34 as the basis for an alleged discovery violation, that party must have first made a discovery request. In a criminal case, if the defendant made no discovery request to the State, the defendant cannot later challenge the admission of documents or electronically stored information on the ground that the State violated T.R. 34 in its production of the materials.
Sevion v. State, No. 23A-CR-1107, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 29, 2023).
Post-Conviction Rule 2 does not apply to the denial of a bond reduction motion.
Russell v. Russell, No. 23A-DC-578, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 22, 2023).
“Joint physical custody” means equal parenting time; while that might not require a perfectly equal 50% – 50% split of parenting time, granting Father 55.5% of parenting time and Mother 44.5% of parenting time is inconsistent with “joint physical custody.”