A defendant cannot avail himself the rulings in another case involving another party in his own criminal case. There must be an identity of parties or their privies and mutuality of estoppel for another ruling to have preclusive effect in a criminal case.
E. Tavitas
J.L. v. M.M., No. 22A-PO-512, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 6, 2022).
The protection order statutes should not be used as a de facto method to modify custody and/or parenting time. However, the protection order statutes offer expedited and ex parte proceedings to provide a “stop gap” to stabilize the situation until the trial court can determine the best interests of the child in a modification proceeding.
Awbrey v. State, No. 21A-CR-2867, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 6, 2022).
Pursuant to the plain language of Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2, the level of an intoxicant in the defendant’s blood, standing alone, is insufficient to establish impairment.
Dunigan v. State, No. 21A-CT-2939, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2022).
The trial court properly dismissed the complaint of an abusive litigant; the appellate court imposes sanctions on the litigant for his abuse of judicial resources.
Mitchell v. State, No. 21A-CR-2722, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 25, 2022).
To be convicted of battery by means of a deadly weapon, the statute requires only that the weapon is readily capable of causing serious bodily injury in the manner in which it was used, could be used, or was intended to be used; there is no requirement that the weapon caused such injury.