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.
J. Baker
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.
Battering v. State, No. 18A-CR-2309, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 11, 2019).
The defendant was not entitled to discharge under Criminal Rule 4(C) as trial-court proceedings were “stayed” when the trial court authorized an interlocutory appeal by the State and vacated the upcoming trial date, but did not actually use the word “stay.”
Henry v. Community Healthcare System Community Hospital, No. 19A-CT-1256, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 8, 2019).
Medical providers owe a common law duty of confidentiality to their patients, so a breach of that duty is possible.