Defendant’s letter to victim’s mother, truthfully stating that victim could face legal consequences for lying under oath in his case, did not support conviction for attempted obstruction of justice. And because his letter did not actually reach the victim in violation of no-contact order, it could not support invasion of privacy but only lesser-included offense of attempted invasion of privacy.
J. Baker
Taylor v. Taylor, No. 49A04-1502-DR-58, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2015).
“[A]fter a relocation notice is filed, if a party seeks a modification of an existing child support order that party must also file a petition to modify child support.”
Young v. Davis, No. 71A04-1501-CT-26, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 4, 2015).
The voluntary dismissal of the governmental entities did not constitute a “judgment” for purposes of ITCA, and so plaintiffs could continue their lawsuit against the government employee individually.
Cox v. State, No. 27A02-1412-CR-599, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 7, 2015).
Amelioration doctrine did not apply to defendant’s sentence because the legislature clearly stated in Ind. Code 1-1-5.5-21(b) that it did not intend the amelioration doctrine to apply.
Dada v. State, ___ N.E.3d ___, No. 53A01-1501-CR-33 (Ind. Ct. App. June 26, 2015).
Court erred in denying expungement to misdemeanant; she was entitled to expungement even though “she had been summonsed rather than arrested” for her offense.