Investigatory costs should be reimbursed because investigation was necessary even though defendant pleaded guilty.
Appeals
Barany v. State, No. 17A04-1510-CR-1734, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 4, 2016).
Trial court properly denied defendant’s request for return of the firearm used to commit murder; defendant cannot profit from sale of murder weapon.
Belork v. Latimer, No. 75A04-1503-MI-100, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 5, 2016).
“[A]djoining parcel owners can treat a fence not initially constructed on the true property line between their parcels as a partition fence, and in that circumstance the fence will be considered a partition fence for purposes of the maintenance and repair requirements and cost-sharing provisions of the partition fence statute.”
Hill v. Gephart, No. 49A02-1509-CT-1288, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 6, 2016).
Although proof of the violation of a safety regulation creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence, it is a question for the jury whether the violation may be excused or justified because the actions might be reasonably expected by a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law.
Cowans v. State, No. __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 27, 2016). __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 27, 2016).
When being pulled over by the police, a driver does not have full discretion to choose to stop anywhere, but with “adequate justification” might have some discretion to choose the location of a stop. Whether the driver exercises limited discretion in choosing a place to stop should be a question of fact for the jury.