A crime victim does not commit perjury merely by changing his opinion regarding the proper punishment for the defendant at the defendant’s sentencing hearing.
Appeals
Peters v. Quakenbush, No. 24A-PL-405, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 13, 2024).
The plain language of the other-jurisdiction provision of Indiana’s Sex and Violent Offender Act compels registration for individuals with out-of-state registration obligations regardless of the source of those obligations.
DeGrado v. DeGrado, No. 24A-DC-187, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 3, 2024).
Extracurricular expense payments are child support. Petition to modify child support put parent on notice that extracurricular expenses were at issue.
Anderson v. State, No. 23A-CR-02609, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 4, 2024).
The grand jury statutory framework does not mandate that the State submit a matter for deliberation as to whether to issue an indictment. The State need not identify or name the target of the grand jury proceeding and identify the crime that the target was alleged to have committed unless the grand jury proceeds to deliberate on whether to issue an indictment.
Seabolt, Dillard, Tyson, and Robinson v. State, No. 24S-PC-270, 24S-PC-271, 24S-PC-272, 24S-PC-273, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 20, 2024).
Once a judge concludes their recusal is mandatory, they must continue recusing in future cases when confronted with the same concern that led them to recuse in the prior case. That is, unless their prior recusal was mistaken or circumstances have changed so that their recusal is no longer mandatory, in which case they again have a duty to preside.