The trial court properly exercised its discretion with the respect to the admission of evidence and providing a supplemental jury instruction. Moreover, the imposition of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole was not inappropriate.
L. Rush
Reece v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. No. 21S-CT-435, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 21, 2021).
When visual obstructions are wholly confined to the land, a landowner owes no duty to the motoring public.
Bunnell v. State, 21S-CR-139, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sep. 2, 2021).
An officer who affirms that they detect the odor of raw marijuana based on their training and experience may establish probable cause without providing further details on their qualifications to recognize said odor.
State v. Jones, 21S-CR-50, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 22, 2021).
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.
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.