When a defendant is processed for home detention, a waiver of the “rights against search and seizure” clearly encompasses the right to be free from search and seizure absent reasonable suspicion.
C. Goff
In re Adoption of I.B., No. 21S-AD-90, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 2, 2021).
Mother’s consent for adoption was not required when mother failed for one year (1) to significantly communicate with child without justification or (2) to support child when able to do so and required by law.
Allen v. State, 20S-XP-506, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 22, 2020).
When faced with a permissive expungement petition, trial court should engage in a two-step process when considering a petition for expungement. First, a court must determine whether the conviction is eligible for expungement under the statute. If the conviction is ineligible, the inquiry ends there. But if the court determines that the conviction is eligible for expungement, it must then collect enough information to determine whether it should grant or deny the petition.
Holcomb v. City of Bloomington, No. 19S-PL-304, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 15, 2020).
City can challenge a statute in a declaratory judgment action against the Governor because the legislation challenged vested enforcement authority in the Governor.
Wadle v. State, No. 19S-CR-340, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 18, 2020).
In overruling Richardson, the Indiana Supreme Court set forth the following test: When multiple convictions for a single act or transaction implicate two or more statutes, a court first looks to the statutes themselves. If either statute clearly permits multiple punishment, whether expressly or by unmistakable implication, the court’s inquiry comes to an end and there is no violation of substantive double jeopardy. But if the statutory language is not clear, then a court must apply the included offense statutes to determine whether the charged offenses are the same. See I.C. § 35-31.5-2-168. If neither offense is included in the other (either inherently or as charged), there is no violation of double jeopardy. But if one offense is included in the other (either inherently or as charged), then the court must examine the facts underlying those offenses, as presented in the charging instrument and as adduced at trial. If, based on these facts, the defendant’s actions were “so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction,” then the prosecutor may charge the offenses as alternative sanctions only. If the defendant’s actions prove otherwise, a court may convict on each charged offense.