The jury in a habitual offender proceeding must be allowed to make the ultimate legal determination of whether the defendant has the status of habitual offender. Only evidence of the defendant’s alleged convictions is relevant to that determination. A defendant has no constitutional right to present irrelevant evidence.
C. Goff
Med. Licensing Bd. of Ind. v. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, No. 22S‐PL‐338, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 30, 2023).
Abortion providers have standing to contest the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1 (2022) because the statute criminalizes their work, and so they face the sort of imminent, direct, personal injury. Indiana Constitution’s Article 1, Section 1 protects a woman’s right to an abortion that is necessary to protect her life or to protect her from a serious health risk, but the General Assembly retains broad legislative discretion for determining whether and the extent to which to prohibit abortions. The Court reversed the trial court’s preliminary injunction.
Davidson v. State, No. 22S-CT-318, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 21, 2023).
A plaintiff seeking tort damages from both government and non-government defendants must sue all tortfeasors in one lawsuit to avoid issue preclusion.
Oberhansley v. State, No. 20S-LW-620, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 17, 2023).
The jury’s LWOP recommendation implicitly reflected the necessary weighing determination; the trial court did not err in imposing the sentence. Considering his character and the nature of the crimes, the sentence was not inappropriate.
Davis v. State, No. 22S-CR-253, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 3, 2023).
If a defendant wishes to challenge their guilty plea, they cannot do so through a direct appeal; the issue of whether a defendant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary should instead be pursued by filing a petition for post-conviction relief.