During a criminal trial, the prosecution can request a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense so long as the charging documents provide adequate notice and the record at trial reveals a serious evidentiary dispute.
M. Massa
Culver Community Teachers Assoc. v. Ind. Education Employment Relations Bd., No. No. 21S-PL-64, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 16, 2021).
Teachers can bargain for pay for ancillary duties, but cannot bargain on the definition of their duties.
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.
City of Marion v. London Witte Group, No. 20S-MI-00567, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 17, 2021).
The Indiana Supreme Court adopts the equitable tolling doctrine of adverse domination when intentional wrongdoing is alleged.
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.