An informant’s identity is inherently revealed through their physical appearance at a face-to-face interview. Thus, when a defendant requests such an interview, the State has met its threshold burden to show the informer’s privilege applies.
L. Rush
State v. Timbs, 20S-MI-289, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 10, 2021).
The excessiveness test announced in State v. Timbs, 134 N.E.3d 12 (Ind. 2019), has two dimensions: instrumentality and proportionality. Instrumentality is not at issue in here because Timbs acknowledged that he used the forfeited vehicle to traffic heroin. As to proportionality, courts must look to whether the forfeiture is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offenses and the claimant’s culpability. This inquiry turns on three factors: the culpability of the claimant for misusing the forfeited property, the harshness of the forfeiture, and the gravity of the claimant’s underlying offenses.
Harris v. State, 20S-CR-546, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 24, 2021).
Although Indiana Rule of Evidence 615(c) is the proper vehicle to permit a parent-witness to remain in the courtroom despite a separation-of witnesses order, the exception is not automatic; child defendants must still affirmatively show their parent’s presence is “essential.”
Hartman v. BigInch Fabricators & Construction Holding Co., Inc., No. 20S-PL-00618, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 28, 2021).
Parties’ freedom to contract may permit “minority” and “marketability” discounts for valuing corporate shares even for shares in a closed-market transaction.
Doe v. Carmel Operator, LLC, No. 21S-CT-15, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 15, 2020).
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.