A single computer can qualify as a “computer system” for purposes of Ind. Code § 35-43-2-3, the computer trespass statute.
J. Kirsch
Olympic Financial Group, Inc., v. State, 21A-CR-1017, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sep. 17, 2021).
For the State to seize cash and seek its forfeiture—or turnover—it must show a nexus between the cash and some sort of criminal activity
Burdick v. Romano, No. 19A-CT-2739, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App, May 5, 2020).
In a case related to an injury caused by a horse in a horse arena, the trial court properly refused to give negligence instructions and properly gave instructions on inherent risks of equine activities and incurred risk.
Pedigo v. State, No. 19A-CR-1848, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 13, 2020).
Under Ind. Code § 9-30-7-3, a law enforcement officer is permitted to offer a subsequent chemical test to a person who the officer has reason to believe operated a vehicle that was involved in a fatal accident or an accident involving serious bodily injury when the officer has first administered a portable breath test that produces negative results, even if the officer does not have probable cause to believe the person is under the influence of a controlled substance or another drug.
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.