Jury was correctly instructed on invasion of privacy; but under actual-evidence test for double jeopardy, one phone call could support only one invasion of privacy conviction, even though it violated both a protective order and a no-contact order.
Appeals
Byers v. Moredock, No. 34A04-1412-CT-560, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 18, 2015).
Property owners have no duty for damage done by tenant’s dog.
City of Fort Wayne v. Parrish, No. 02A05-1408-CT-359, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 19, 2015).
A violation of the Seatbelt Act may not be used to prove contributory negligence.
T.S. v. State, No. 49A02-1410-JV-739, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 11, 2015).
Judicial estoppel does not apply against the state in juvenile delinquency proceedings.
Carr v. State, No. 45A04-1409-CR-456, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 12, 2015).
Savings statute for the revised penal code prohibited application of the revised sentence modification statute, which does not require prosecutorial consent to a modification petition, to a petition to modify for a crime committed and sentenced prior to the July 1, 2014 effective date of the modification statute’s revision.