The Indiana Supreme Court reiterated in Wadle, that an offense is factually included when the charging instrument alleges that the means used to commit the crime charged include all of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense. Here, juvenile’s adjudications for possession of a machine gun and dangerous possession of a firearm were factually included and thus, entry of judgment on both counts was a violation of double jeopardy.
C. Bradford
Erie Ins. Exchange v. Craighead, No. 21A-CT-2871, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 12, 2022).
Medical payments coverage does not reduce an uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage obligation.
State v. Lyons, No. 21A-CR-2187, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 11, 2022).
Even in the criminal context, the purpose of Indiana’s discovery rules is to allow a liberal discovery procedure for the purpose of providing litigants with information essential to the litigation of all relevant issues, eliminate surprise, and to promote settlement. When a discovery rule is violated, a trial court has broad discretion to impose sanctions, which may include exclusion of all evidence that might have flowed from the violation.
Bunch v. State, No. 21A-CR-2278, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 6, 2022).
The process for having a federal right to possess firearms restored following a conviction of a crime of domestic violence is tied to the state procedure for having said right restore; that procedure in Indiana is conducted pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-47-4-7.
Higginson v. State, No. 21A-CR-1169, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 4, 2022).
To entirely forbid the use of effects-of-battery evidence, or psychological trauma, in self-defense cases that fall under Ind. Code § 35-41-3-11, would render the self-defense portion of the statute superfluous.