Ind. Code § 9-30-10-4(e), requiring the BMV to use the dates of the offenses rather than the dates of the judgments in determining a person’s status as a HTV, is a procedural amendment which does not violate the ex post facto clauses of the Indiana and United States Constitutions.
E. Brown
Patchett v. Lee, No. 29D01-1305-CT-4116, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 19, 2015).
Evidence of payments made by the Healthy Indiana Plan (“HIP”) to reimburse plaintiff’s medical providers was inadmissible.
Darringer v. State, No. 32A01-1503-CR-86, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2015).
Traffic stop was based on unreasonable mistake of law, thus requiring suppression of evidence and reversal of OWI conviction; deputy’s belief in mid-2014 that temporary license plate could not be displayed in back window was unreasonable in view of 2013 amendment of I.C. § 9-32-6-11 expressly permitting such displays.
Pittman v. State, No. 49A05-1504-CR-137, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2015).
Attempted stalking, unlike the completed crime, does not require proof that the defendant’s conduct “actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened.”
Stockert v. State, No. 76A04-1504-CR-144, ___ N.E.3d ___, (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 22, 2015).
By operation of law, defendant’s guilty plea to B-felony criminal deviate conduct rendered him SVP with lifetime registration; DOC therefore properly classified him as such, despite trial court’s erroneous statements that he was required to register for only ten years and was not an SVP.