A second or subsequent pat down search must by supported by specific and articulable facts that the suspect is armed and dangerous or incident to arrest.
J. Baker
J.S. v. State, No. 19A-CR-733, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 13, 2019).
Where defendant filed a motion for indigent counsel but failed to appear at a hearing to consider that motion, trial court improperly denied his motion and required that he proceed pro se without giving sufficient warning about the perils of self-representation, and by not inquiring as to his indigency.
Watson v. State, No. 19A-CR-49, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2019).
The one-year speedy trial deadline includes cases involving habitual offender adjudications, and after nearly six and two-thirds years of inexplicable delay—with at least one year of delay directly attributable to the State—there was a Criminal Rule 4(C) violation. Defendant should not have been held to answer to the allegations that he is a habitual offender.
In re Guardianship of Luis, No. 19A-GU-1276, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 1, 2019).
For Special Immigrant Juvenile status, trial courts are required to consider and make findings on two statutory elements: (1) is reunification with one or both parents viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law; and (2) would it be in the special immigrant’s best interest to be returned to her previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence.
Weikart v. Whitko Comm. School Corp., No. 19A-CT-1224, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 17, 2019).
Trial court properly dismissed case for failure to state a claim; police officer did not have a special duty to plaintiff to protect her activities from public disclosure.