If a person has a fair and reasonable foundation for believing that he or she has a right to be present on the property, there is no criminal trespass. If a person is not given a reasonable period of time to comply with a request to leave the premises, then there is no criminal trespass.
M. Barnes
Chastain v. State, No. 20A03-1510-CR-1839, ___N.E.3d___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 4, 2016).
There is no requirement in the intimidation statute that a prior lawful act has to be completed for any considerable length of time before a threat is made; as a matter of public policy, people should be able to attempt to defuse situations without being threatened with the use of deadly force.
Etter v. State, No. 49A02-1508-CR-1263, __N.E.3d__(Ind. Ct. App., June 16, 2016).
Although the trial court was frustrated with defense counsel and made inappropriate comments, they were not so damaging as to necessitate a mistrial.
Villaruel v. State, No. 71A03-1506-CR-544, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 23, 2016).
Trial court failed to undertake Batson analysis when defense challenged State’s peremptory strike of Hispanic juror; convictions were therefore reversed and remanded for new trial.
In re D.W., No. 45A03-1507-JC-842, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 24, 2016).
Trial court’s order denying mother’s motion to modify permanency plan was not a final judgment, and so the Court of Appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appeal.