Although a trial court has discretion in granting or denying an expungement petition, it does not extend to a disregard of remedial measures enacted by our lawmakers. Such statutes should be liberally construed to advance the remedy for which they were enacted.
M. Bailey
Woodford v. State, No. 20A03-1601-CR-171, ___N.E.3d___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 5, 2016).
The trial court has authority to reduce or suspend a prior sentence and impose a new sentence that the court was authorized to impose at the time of sentencing under Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17.
Jimerson v. State, No. 52A02-1510-CR-1538, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2016).
“Where a jury is able to apply concepts without further assistance, highlighting individual exchanges or vouching for the truth or falsity of particular evidence is invasive.”
State v. Cassady, No. 17A03-1512-CR-2090, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., June 30, 2016).
Law enforcement officer’s actions were conducted in a manner that did not prolong the stop beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket, and support the denial of a motion to suppress.
Carroll v. State No. 27A02-1510-MI-1743, ___N.E. 3d___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 19, 2016).
Defendant’s conduct that occurred during a video hearing, and not in a courtroom, did not preclude application of the contempt statute.