The Indiana General Assembly has not yet provided the statutory authority to grant subject matter jurisdiction to an adult criminal court in the situation where the adult criminal court is aware that an individual is alleged to have committed a delinquent act of child molesting when he was under eighteen (a child) but is twenty-one or older at the time the State seeks to file charges against him.
Appeals
Davis v. State, 21A-CR-52, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 15, 2021).
Revision of a sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) requires the appellant to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender; failure to address both prongs results in waiver of appropriateness review.
Holsten v. Faur, No. 20A-CT-2072, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 8, 2021).
If medical malpractice plaintiff’s proposed complaint for the medical review panel does not encompass a particular theory of negligence, the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over that theory of negligence.
Brown v. State, 20A-CR-2261, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 24, 2021).
Administrative punishment rendered by the Department of Correction does not preclude a subsequent criminal prosecution for the same conduct.
Koziski v. State, 20A-CR-1889, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 2, 2021).
Multiple convictions based on separate provisions under the child-molesting statute should be analyzed using the double jeopardy test set forth in Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227 (Ind. 2020) as opposed to Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. 2020).