A trial court’s sua sponte order for a competency evaluation does not extinguish and reset time under Criminal Rule 4(B); so long as the defendant maintains a position reasonably consistent with his speedy-trial request, delays attributable to competency evaluations simply toll the applicable deadline.
C. Goff
Wohlt v. Wohlt, No. 24S-DR-385, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 21, 2024).
Property settlement agreement had no ambiguity when it used the word “all” to describe division of assets; both forgotten and remembered assets were included in that description so that the property division would be final.
Finnegan v. State, No. 24S-MI-68, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 5, 2024).
Statutory procedures for asserting the insanity defense in criminal proceedings do not apply in an indirect criminal contempt action because it is not a criminal case.
Grimes v. State, No. 24S-CR-217, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 26, 2024).
When a trial court postpones a criminal trial due to congestion and the defendant objects, a reviewing court applies a burden-shifting test. The test first gives deference to the trial court’s initial finding of congestion. But if the defendant presents a prima facie case that the court’s congestion finding is inaccurate, the burden shifts to the trial court to explain why its calendar required continuing the trial. If the court fails to meet its burden, the defendant is entitled to have the State’s claim against him dismissed or discharged.
B.K. and S.K. v. State, No. 23S-JV-344, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 18, 2024).
Because the juvenile restitution statute does not have a judgment lien provision, a juvenile court lacks the authority to enforce a restitution order as a civil judgment lien.