Because the court was required to order preparation of a predispositional report in a CHINS case, and the report had to be provided to the parties prior to the dispositional hearing, the report did not need to be admitted into evidence to be part of the record that the juvenile court could consider.
M. May
In re K.W., No. 23A-JV-2040, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 20, 2024).
A juvenile problem-solving court cannot order jail time or house arrest for the parent of a juvenile delinquent without providing written notice of the allegations or the assistance of counsel.
Frye v. State, No. 23A-CR-1691, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 31, 2024).
The ability to consent is a unifying theme to the separate situations of proscribed conduct constituting Level 3 felony rape; a defendant should be able to ask the alleged victim questions about their shared sexual history to determine whether there is any basis by which defendant could defend themselves by arguing the alleged were consensual.
Brown v. State, No. 23A-CR-330, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 10, 2024).
A twenty-one-year-old falls into the jurisdictional gap our Indiana Supreme Court identified in D.P. and Neukam. While statutes that became effective on July 1, 2023, cured this jurisdictional gap, retroactive application of these statutes violate a defendant’s right under the United States Constitution to be free of ex post facto laws.
Hogg v. State, No. 23A-CR-525, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 1, 2024).
Unless there is new evidence or information discovered to warrant additional charges, the potential for prosecutorial vindictiveness is too great for courts to allow the State to bring additional charges against a defendant after that defendant exercises their right to a fair trial by moving for a mistrial.