[W]hile a defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of the instrument may be relevant to show intent to defraud, it is not an essential element of forgery.
C. Bradford
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Mark Dill Plumbing Co., No. 87A01-0807-CV-307, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 25, 2009)
Trial court did not err in denying mortgage owner’s request for a “strict foreclosure” where mortgage owner failed to make junior lienholders parties to the foreclosure action.
Benefield v. State, No. 41A01-0806-CR-272, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 25, 2009)
Forgery, based on intent to defraud, cannot be committed by making a representation recklessly without regard to its truth or falsity.
In re Termination of Parental Rights of J.H., No. 02A05-0807-JV-410, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2009)
Indiana Code § 31-32-9-1(d) does not exempt DCS from compliance with service of process Trial Rules, but DCS nevertheless adequately complied with such rules to satisfy due process considerations.
McGhee v. State, No. 48A02-0804-CR-345, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 29, 2008)
Confession was involuntary when it was induced by officer’s erroneous assurance that consensual sex between defendant and his adult niece was legal.