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.
Appeals
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.
Parker v. State, No. 21A-CR-1643, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 30, 2022).
A defendant cannot avail himself the rulings in another case involving another party in his own criminal case. There must be an identity of parties or their privies and mutuality of estoppel for another ruling to have preclusive effect in a criminal case.
State v. $2,435 in U.S Currency, No. 22A-CR-00578, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2022).
It is well-settled that the State’s civil forfeiture complaints are outside of Article 1, Section 20, and are equitable claims to be tried by the court.