A timely cross-appeal from a trial court’s order belatedly granting a motion to correct error is not limited to only issues raised in a motion to correct error; it may include any issues it preserved in the trial court.
D. Molter
Ramos-Osario v. State, No. 26S-CR-198, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 24, 2026).
While judges can reconsider pretrial suppression rulings, the State is not required to prove constitutional compliance a second time at trial.
Martinez v. Smith, et al, No. 26S-CT-112, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 8, 2026).
The common-law duty under the Reece case to refrain from creating hazardous conditions encompasses not just the paved portion of the roadway but also traffic-control devices within the public right-of-way.
Moyers v. State, No. 26S-CR-86, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 20, 2026).
The Powell test applies to multiple convictions for elevated offenses that share a common base offense. Stated another way, a base offense and its elevated forms constitute a single statutory offense.
Rosen v. Community Healthcare System d/b/a Community Hospital, No. 25S-CT-217, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 11, 2026).
Rosen argues we should vacate the judgment for the hospital for two reasons. First, she claims the hospital spoliated evidence, and she was unfairly prejudiced by the trial court unreasonably declining to remedy the spoliation. Second, she claims the trial court erred by sustaining the hospital’s objections to her introducing evidence that there was additional video footage that the hospital didn’t preserve. The hospital responds that each of these rulings reflects a reasonable judgment call within the trial court’s discretion. We agree with the hospital and analyze each issue in turn.