Where a suspect has not been arrested, arraigned or indicted, a polygraph examination and post-testing interrogation do not constitute critical stages upon which the right to counsel attaches. Evidence that a polygraph examination directly preceded a confession, occurred in the exact same room, and involved the same officer to which the confession was given may be admissible. Consistent with Indiana Rule of Evidence 106, the preliminaries to a polygraph examination, the examination itself, and the subsequent police interview are all part of one recorded statement, and fairness dictates that neither party should be able to decide that the jury will hear only the parts of the statement it deems favorable to its case.
C. Bradford
In re Adoption of R.G.B., No. 24A-CT-859, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 23, 2024).
Waiver of the home study requirement in an adoption when the adoptive parents are not a stepparent or the grandparents is reversible error.
Helvie v. State, No. 24A-CR-1441, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 16, 2024).
Indiana Criminal Rule 3.3(C)(1) provides, in part, that a “defendant may plead guilty to all charged offenses without a plea agreement or to at least one of the charged offenses pursuant to a plea agreement negotiated with the state.” Therefore, absent a plea agreement, the Rule’s language precludes a defendant from pleading guilty to anything less than all of the charges.
In re Guardianship of Adducci, No. 23A-GU-2433, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 17, 2024).
FSSA had a right to intervene in guardianship because the spousal support order diverted money that would have otherwise been used to pay medical bills. The trial court could not increase spousal support because the state Medicaid statute requires a “fair hearing before the State agency” to determine if an allowance should be increased.
Konkle v. State, No. 23A-CR-783, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 24, 2024).
The eggshell-skull doctrine does not apply in cases of murder or voluntary manslaughter. The relevant statutes require that the defendant either must intend to kill the victim or know that his actions will likely result in the victim’s death, which is inconsistent with the proposition that you take your victim as you find them.