“[I]t is the absolute right of every criminal defendant to receive the following jury instruction upon request: ‘The presumption of innocence continues in favor of the defendant throughout the trial. You should fit the evidence to the presumption that the defendant is innocent if you can reasonably do so.’”
M. Massa
Sargent v. State, No. 49D07-1111-MI-44802, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 24, 2015).
Reverses forfeiture of vehicle on basis that employee detained in her workplace while trying to illegally take employer’s property was not in possession, constructive or otherwise, of her automobile parked in the lot at the place of employment.
Griesmer v. State, No. 49S04-1408-CR-564, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 5, 2015).
Entrapment defense failed due to failure to prove alleged criminal conduct was the product of law enforcement action.
Blount v. State, No. 49S02-1405- CR-338, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 17, 2014).
Admission of course-of-investigation evidence was error.
Lyons v. Richmond Cmty. School Corp., No. 89S04-1312-PL-788, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 28, 2014).
Because whether a plaintiff has complied with the requirements of the ITCA is one of law, but the answer may depend upon the resolution of disputed facts, the issue should be handled by a carefully drafted jury instruction.