Equitable estoppel can be applied only if three elements are shown: lack of knowledge, reliance, and prejudicial effect. The Court declines to adopt alternative theories for equitable estoppel.
L. Rush
Watson v. State, 20A-CR-1142, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 21, 2020).
While Criminal Rule 4(C) does not apply to habitual-offender retrials, the constitutional right to a speedy trial does.
D.P. v. State, State v. N.B., No. 20S-JV-443, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Sep. 8, 2020).
A juvenile court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to waive an alleged delinquent offender into adult criminal court if the individual is no longer a “child.”
Seo v. State, No. 18S-CR-595, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 23, 2020).
Even if a search warrant has been issued, forcing a person to unlock, and therefore disclose that contents of their cellphone, violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Gulzar v. State, No. 19S-XP-673, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 24, 2020).
Amended expungement statute, which clarifies that the “date of conviction” for a felony reduced to a misdemeanor is the date of the felony conviction, applies retroactively.