To prevent disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity, it is not enough to show that the CI’s identity might be revealed. Rather, it is the State’s burden to prove that the CI’s identity would be revealed as a result of a face-to-face interview.
Appeals
Temme v. State, 20A-CR-275, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2020).
Because Indiana has a statutory scheme for the award of credit time, the equitable, common law doctrine of “credit for time erroneously at liberty,” does not apply.
Sargent v. State, 20A-CR-1142, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2020).
While participation in a Purposeful Incarceration Program (PIP) may lead to a subsequent sentence modification, a request for a participation recommendation is not, in itself, a request for modification under Indiana Code Section 35-18-1-17.
McCoy v. State, 20A-CR-723, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2020).
Absent evidence that comments rose to the level of unreasonable noise, loud criticism of government action does not constitute disorderly conduct.
H.H. v. S. H., No. 20A-PO-926, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 13, 2020).
Ind. Code § 34-26-5-9(f) does not require that the trial court make a particularized finding to support a deviation from the stated two-year term when issuing a protective order.