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.
Appeals
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.”
Baker v. State, No. 23A-CR-1340, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 27, 2023).
In a criminal jury trial where the State presents evidence of a greater number of separate criminal offenses than charged and does not designate the specific act or acts on which it relies for conviction, a general unanimity instruction is insufficient. The jury should be instructed that they must either unanimously agree that the defendant committed the same act or acts or that the defendant committed all the acts alleged. However, where multiple similar acts are part of one continuous episode, a special unanimity instruction is not required.