Because the trial court’s order sets out the evidence in favor of the verdict for plaintiff but does not mention any of the evidence in favor of a verdict for defendant, it failed to comply with Trial Rule 59(J), and the jury verdict was reinstated.
Appeals
State v. Zerbe, No. 49A05-1410-MI-463, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 29, 2015).
Indiana Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORA) requirement for out-of-state sex offender registrants to register in Indiana for the period required by the other jurisdiction was enacted before defendant moved to Indiana, and therefore was not unconstitutional ex post facto law.
Zamani v. State, No. 32A05-1406-CR-264, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 29, 2015).
Since competence to stand trial had been at issue throughout the case, defendant failed to show good cause for belated request (five days before trial) to assert an insanity defense.
Jackson v. State, No. 48A02-1409-CR-670, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 4, 2015).
(1) Because habitual-offender predicate offenses were not factually contested, trial judge who had prosecuted the predicate offenses was not required to recuse. (2) A “pattern of racketeering activity” under Indiana’s corrupt business influence statute, like similar federal RICO statute, requires proof that the predicate offenses “amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity.”
Brewer v. State, No. 82A05-1410-CR-458, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 4, 2015).
Under Indiana’s statutory double jeopardy protections, defendant’s Kentucky convictions for receiving stolen property (a car) and fleeing/evading police (1) barred subsequent prosecution for having stolen the car in Indiana, but (2) did not bar prosecution for resisting law enforcement in Indiana for evading police in Evansville before crossing the border in Kentucky.