Ind. Code § 34-12-5-7, which bars class actions against post-secondary educational institutions for claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from COVID-19, impermissibly conflicts with T.R. 23 and so it is a nullity.
Appeals
A.R. v. State, No. 22A-JV-156, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 5, 2022).
While Ind. Code § 31-30-2-3, states that the trial court, on its own motion, may reinstate a jurisdiction over a juvenile after release from DOC, a motion by the prosecution is sufficient. Moreover, Ind. Code § 11-8-8-4.5, which subjects an offender who is at least 14 years age to sex offender registration, applies at the time of registration, not when the delinquent act was committed.
In re Z.D., No. 22A-JC-875, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2022).
When a party’s first appearance in a case is made in person when it should have been virtual, the court should be hesitant to treat that appearance as defiant or otherwise improper. A parent who requests a contested CHINS fact-finding hearing has a constitutional right to that hearing, and a parent does not forfeit that right by appearing in person to a virtual hearing.
Hayko v. State, No. 21A-CR-2407, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sep. 28, 2022).
Ind. Rule of Evid. 608 sets forth two types of evidence; opinion and reputation. In contrast to reputation evidence, opinion testimony is admissible if rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or to a determination of a fact in issue.
Holmgren v. State, No. 21A-CR-2756, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2022).
To receive an increased sentence under Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4(c) for Level 1 felony child molesting, Apprendi mandates that a victim’s age is a fact that must be determined by the fact-finder.