Summons served on wife was insufficient as a matter of law for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant, because it neither complied with Trial Rule 4(C)(5) or due process. Due process requires that, at a minimum, a respondent in a dissolution proceeding be notified of the risk of default for failure to appear or otherwise respond.
Appeals
Sanjari v. State, No. 20A03-1007-CR-384, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 11, 2010)
Defendant was properly tried in absentia after he refused to leave his cell for trial, when evidence indicated he had been ill due to his hunger strike but was better on the date of trial. Defendant was also properly denied additional continuances near trial and properly required to represent himself, after the court had granted one continuance for defendant’s counsel of choice to obtain admission in Indiana pro hac vice but counsel then submitted two defective requests for admission. Defendant was charged with two counts of criminal nonsupport, one for each of his children, but as there was only a single support order for support in gross, he could be convicted only a a single count of failure to support.
Goens v. State, No. 41A01-1006-CR-277, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 14, 2011)
Statute requires only one operating stoplight on a vehicle, so motorist whose vehicle had one operating stoplight and one burned out was not in violation of the traffic law, and officer’s good faith belief that an unoperational stoplight was an infraction did not justify stopping the motorist, so that motion to suppress should have been granted.
In Re Guardianship of J.Y., No. 27A02-1005-GU-744, ___ N.E.2d ___, (Ind. Ct. App., Feb 15, 2011)
“[R]equirements of a personal representative are not the same as the requirements for a guardian, and as a result a nonprofit corporation not authorized as a corporate fiduciary in Indiana may serve as guardian where it could not serve as a personal representative.”
Thompson v. Gerowitz, No. 49A05-1005-CT-296, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 16, 2011)
Juror’s silence during voir dire when taken with her subsequent statement to the trial court regarding possible bias required the trial court to conduct a hearing out of the presence of the remainder of the jury to determine whether the juror’s silence indicated bias or lack of disinterest, and whether the hearing itself created a bias in the juror.