Under the statute prohibiting incarcerated individuals from possessing material capable of causing bodily injury (IC 35-44.1-3-7), even if an arrestee involuntarily brings prohibited material into a penal facility, the failure to relinquish it at the earliest reasonable opportunity is a voluntary act that may subject them to criminal liability.
L. Rush
Moyers v. State, No. 26S-CR-86, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 20, 2026).
The Powell test applies to multiple convictions for elevated offenses that share a common base offense. Stated another way, a base offense and its elevated forms constitute a single statutory offense.
Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau and Indiana Department of Insurance v. Technology Insurance Company, No. 26S-PL-83, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 17, 2026).
Whether the Company is entitled to relief rests on two questions: first, whether the Company had to follow the dispute-resolution provisions set out in the Assigned Risk Plan and agreements, limiting the Company’s relief in the trial court to judicial review under the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act; second, assuming the Company is limited to seeking recourse under AOPA, whether the Company properly sought judicial review.
Norris v. Norris, No. 25S-DR-226, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 12, 2026).
After the Court of Appeals issued its published opinion that partially reversed the trial court’s judgment, Jennifer timely sought rehearing. While that request was pending, the trial court, on its own, issued a revised order to implement the Court of Appeals’ instructions. But the trial court lacked authority to issue that order because the appellate opinion was not yet certified. We thus take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of following Appellate Rule 65(E), which prohibits trial courts, administrative agencies, and parties from taking action based on published opinions or memorandum decisions (collectively “opinions”) before they are certified.
Shabazz v. State, No. 25S-CR-183, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 23, 2026).
To show good cause under Interim Rule 14(C) for remote testimony in a criminal trial, the State must present case-specific evidence that allowing a particular witness to testify remotely is necessary to prevent a concrete and substantial harm that would otherwise likely occur and that could not be adequately addressed if the witness were to testify in person.