When deciding whether a defendant properly waives the right to counsel in capital and LWOP cases, a trial court should frame its waiver inquiry with the state’s heightened reliability interests in mind. That inquiry should focus on whether, and to what extent, the defendant has prior experience with the legal system; the scope of the defendant’s knowledge of criminal law, legal procedures, rules of evidence, and sentencing; and whether and to what extent the defendant can articulate and present any possible defenses, including lesser-included offenses and mitigating evidence.
C. Goff
State v. Ellis, 21S-CR-159, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 26, 2021).
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.
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.