Trial court abused its discretion in finding that defendant’s violation warranted revoking his community corrections placement and in ordering him to serve eighteen months in jail.
E. Brown
Staggs v. Buxbaum, No. 47A04-1510-PL-1758, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 28, 2016).
Crime Victim Relief Act (CVRA) damages are distinct from common law punitive damages; court properly awarded CVRA damages after making an “assessment of criminality.”
Belork v. Latimer, No. 75A04-1503-MI-100, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 5, 2016).
“[A]djoining parcel owners can treat a fence not initially constructed on the true property line between their parcels as a partition fence, and in that circumstance the fence will be considered a partition fence for purposes of the maintenance and repair requirements and cost-sharing provisions of the partition fence statute.”
Hill v. Gephart, No. 49A02-1509-CT-1288, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 6, 2016).
Although proof of the violation of a safety regulation creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence, it is a question for the jury whether the violation may be excused or justified because the actions might be reasonably expected by a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law.
Luke v. State, No. 15A01-1409-CR-407, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 24, 2016).
Conviction for stalking four victims, based on conduct spanning January 2012 to February 2014, violated actual-evidence double jeopardy principles when defendant had been convicted a month earlier for invasion of privacy committed against three of the same victims for conduct spanning three days in January 2014. The State presented substantial evidence of the three-day course of conduct in the subsequent trial; and both cases alleged a violation of the same previously issued no-contact order.