Exclusion from trial for failing a drug test is improper. In such instances, a trial court should apply, and exhaust, lesser contempt penalties, before imposing the extreme sanction of the deprivation of fundamental rights.
Appeals
Olympic Financial Group, Inc., v. State, 21A-CR-1017, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sep. 17, 2021).
For the State to seize cash and seek its forfeiture—or turnover—it must show a nexus between the cash and some sort of criminal activity
Wilburn v. State, 20A-CR-1709, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sep. 20, 2021).
A conviction for burglary cannot be sustained if an alleged perpetrator enters a business open to the public during business hours, with intent to commit a felony or theft in it, due to a lack of evidence as to breaking.
I.G. v. State, No. 21A-JV-479, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 10, 2021).
The odor of marijuana, by itself, is not enough to establish probable cause to arrest the occupants of a vehicle.
State v. Barnett, No. 20A-CR-2144, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 25, 2021).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving preclusive effect to the Marion County Probate Court’s 2012 age-change order and the March 7, 2017, order reaffirming same, thus preventing the State from relitigating the alleged victim’s age; and the trial court did not err in dismissing multiple counts against the defendants because the charges were filed outside of the five-year statute of limitations period.