Defendant is not deprived of the benefit of hindsight when it reveals their conduct was necessary in self-defense, even though that necessity wasn’t fully apparent in the moment
C. Goff
Konkle v. State, No. 24S-CR-207, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 12, 2025).
The eggshell doctrine can be used in criminal cases, including murder. The eggshell skull doctrine is one of causation, and causation is a required element in proving a criminal conviction, it only makes sense that the doctrine be applied for such purposes.
JWB v. State, No. 24S-CR-288, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 24, 2025).
Even if the recent amendments to Ind. Code 31-30-1-4(d) and 31-37-1-2 (the juvenile jurisdiction statutes), are remedial, the General Assembly did not intend to apply them retroactively to pending cases.
Automotive Finance Corp. v. Liu, No. 24S-CC-223, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 23, 2025).
Trial court could not use Trial Rule 60(B)(3) to grant relief on grounds that the defendant could have raised in a motion to correct error.
Jennings v. Smiley, No. 24S-CT-186, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 24, 2025).
The party seeking production of a smartphone must provide some evidence of the device’s use at a time when it could have been a contributing cause of the incident litigated and must describe the data sought with reasonable particularity.