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.
E. Tavitas
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.
Atkins v. Crawford County Clerk’s Office, No. 20A-MI-2160, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 1, 2021).
Trial court improperly denied a motion to waive the filing fee when plaintiff filed a verified affidavit of indigency with documentation of her cash assets. If the trial court had any doubt about plaintiff’s indigency, the trial court could have waived the filing fee, and, upon a later discovery that the litigant has the means to pay, order reimbursement of the waived fee; or a trial court may hold a hearing to examine the litigant’s potential indigency.
AO Alfa-Bank v. Doe, No. 20A-MI-2352, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 19, 2021).
Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider a motion to quash an out-of-state subpoena which had not been domesticated.