When a defendant is charged with a crime elevated based upon a prior infraction, the trial court is not required to bifurcate the proceedings. Because Lorazepam’s status as a legend drug was not an issue of fact—it was identified in court by a name specifically designated as a controlled substance by the Indiana Code—the trial court did not erroneously invade the province of the jury by giving instructions that created a mandatory presumption indicating that the substance was classified as a legend drug.
E. Tavitas
In re Z.H., No. 23A-JC-1120, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 27, 2023).
The filing of a motion to dismiss does not mandate dismissal of a CHINS case; the decision rests in the trial court’s discretion. Trial courts should review the reasons proffered in support of dismissal in light of the evidence and allegations and then determine whether dismissal is in the child’s best interests.
Kirby v. State, No. 22A-CR-2971, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 17, 2023).
While the silent witness theory’s foundation requirements are applicable when a video is admitted into evidence, the requirements also applicable when: (1) witnesses testified regarding the substance of a video; (2) the video recorded events that the witnesses themselves did not observe first-hand; and (3) the video was not offered into evidence.
Young v. State, No. 22A-CR-2923, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 14, 2023).
The testimony of a police officer, by itself, that he was acting as an agent of the property owner is insufficient to establish that the officer was in fact an agent of the owner. Therefore, a police officer who is neither an owner of a property nor an agent of an owner of a property cannot create a trespass violation by asking a patron to leave and then arrest the patron when they refuse to do so.
In re Civil Commitment of G.H., No. 23A-MH-490, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 4, 2023).
Trial court did not have the proof necessary to impose a special condition on an involuntary commitment to outpatient therapy when there was no reasonable relationship between the special condition and respondent’s treatment and safety or that of the general public.