Even in the criminal context, the purpose of Indiana’s discovery rules is to allow a liberal discovery procedure for the purpose of providing litigants with information essential to the litigation of all relevant issues, eliminate surprise, and to promote settlement. When a discovery rule is violated, a trial court has broad discretion to impose sanctions, which may include exclusion of all evidence that might have flowed from the violation.
Appeals
Crowley v. State, No. 21A-MI-2064, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 16, 2022).
If another state previously subjected a pre-SORA offender to a registration requirement, requiring him to register in Indiana is not punitive. It is irrelevant where or when the conviction occurred, as long as another state imposed a lawful registration obligation on the offender and SORA does not so significantly alter that obligation to result in added punishment.
Israel v. Israel, No. 21A-DC-1063, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 16, 2022).
Non-disparagement clause in divorce decree amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech because it forbade the parties from making disparaging remarks about the other when outside the presence of the child.
Reyes v. State, No. 21A-CR-2646, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 6, 2022).
Because Indiana Jury Rule 26(a) affords trial courts the option to give final instructions before or after closing arguments, a court can do either without abusing its discretion.
Cole v. Cole, No. 21A-MI-2415, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 28, 2022).
Under the Hague Convention, interests of children in matters relating to their custody are best served when decisions are made in the child’s country of habitual residence. Determination of a child’s habitual residence is fact-intensive and varies with the circumstances of each case.