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.
C. Goff
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.
Powell v. State, No. 19S-CR-527, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 18, 2020).
While Indiana’s attempted-murder statute contains no clear unit of prosecution, the multiple shots defendant fired—despite their proximity in space and time—amount to two chargeable offenses based on his dual purpose of intent to kill both victims.
Hardin v. State, No. 20S-CR-418, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 23, 2020).
Based on the high degree of law enforcement concern and moderate law-enforcement needs, both the Fourth Amendment and the Indiana Constitution, permit police, armed with a warrant to search a home, to search a vehicle located in the home’s curtilage when officers possess knowledge that the vehicle is either actually owned or under the control and dominion of the premises owner or resident or, alternatively, those vehicles which appear, based on objectively reasonable indicia present at the time of the search, to be so controlled.