Even though defense counsel agreed to removal of a juror after deliberations had begun, where the record did not show that the removal was justified, the conviction must be reversed and a new trial held.
E. Brown
Abney v. State, No. 34A02-1608-CR-1746, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 22, 2017).
A judge is not required to recuse because an attorney in the case is involved in the judge’s judicial campaign unless an objective person, knowledgeable of all the circumstances, would have a rational basis for doubting the judge’s impartiality.
Watkins v. State, No. 82A01-1510-CR-1624, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2017).
Under the totality of the circumstances, the extent of law enforcement’s need for a “military-style assault” was low and the degree of intrusion was unreasonably high; the search violated defendant’s right to be secure against an unreasonable search and seizure.
Polet v. ESG Security, Inc., No. 49A02-1510-CT-1631, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2016).
Where foreseeability is an element of duty, the court must determine the question of foreseeability as a matter of law; stage collapse due to high wind is not foreseeable as a matter of law.
Yeager v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., No. 22A04-1604-MF-727, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 6, 2016).
In a mortgage foreclosure, a trial court must hold a hearing or to otherwise obtain information to determine the amount of the defendant’s provisional monthly payment.