Trial court improperly granted T.R. 12(B)(1) motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because a fact-sensitive and claim-specific analysis is required to determine whether the First Amendment bars the claims against the church, the issue was not ripe for disposition.
E. Tavitas
In re K.W. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., No. 21A-JC-598, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2021).
CHINS fact-finding hearing and dispositional hearings were properly continued for good cause pursuant to Trial Rule 53.5.
Wells v. State, 21A-CR-612, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 22, 2021).
Exclusion from trial for failing a drug test is improper. In such instances, a trial court should apply, and exhaust, lesser contempt penalties, before imposing the extreme sanction of the deprivation of fundamental rights.
Wilburn v. State, 20A-CR-1709, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sep. 20, 2021).
A conviction for burglary cannot be sustained if an alleged perpetrator enters a business open to the public during business hours, with intent to commit a felony or theft in it, due to a lack of evidence as to breaking.
Davis v. State, 21A-CR-52, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 15, 2021).
Revision of a sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) requires the appellant to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender; failure to address both prongs results in waiver of appropriateness review.