Courts are no longer statutorily required to have prosecutorial consent to modify a sentence, but if it makes a preliminary determination that it would grant a petition to modify it should request documentation from the DOC and hold a hearing on the petition.
M. May
Seo v. State, No. 29A05-1710-CR-2466, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 21, 2018).
Compelling defendant to unlock her iPhone, under the threat of contempt and imprisonment, is constitutionally prohibited by the Fifth Amendment because revealing or using the passcode to do so is a testimonial act. The State must describe with reasonable particularity the information it seeks to compel defendant to produce and why.
ONB Ins. Group, Inc. v. Estate of Mengel, No. 40A01-1707-CT-1513, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 25, 2018).
This case uses the Goodwin/Rogers analysis for a negligence case that does not involve premise liability with third-party acts. When the broad type of plaintiffs are motorists, the defendants are an insurance agency and its agent, and the type of harm as a multi-vehicle collision caused by faulty brakes on a large tractor-trailer, defendants owe no common law duty to plaintiffs
State v. Lindauer, No. 87A05-1709-CR-2137, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 20, 2018).
Criminal Rule 4(C) was created to move cases along and not to create a mechanism to avoid trial. A defendant cannot habitually move to reset the preliminary hearing at which the trial date was to be set and then claim that his right to trial within a year was violated.
Marshall v. State, No. 64A05-1710-CR-2368, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 20, 2018).
Because the arresting officer could only testify that the defendant’s vehicle “was going over the posted speed limit”, he did not have specific articulable facts to support his initiation of a traffic stop, and therefore it violated defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.