The trial court erred when it based the modification of child’s legal custody solely on religion; totally prohibiting father from discussing religion with child violates his First Amendment right to free speech.
M. May
BFD Enterprises, LLC v. Koepnick, No. 21A-CT-1931, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2022).
The principal of comity supports dismissing Indiana lawsuit when one is pending in another state, even though the Indiana lawsuit was filed days before the other lawsuit, the other court acquired jurisdiction over the parties before the Indiana court and the other lawsuit is further along in the litigation process.
Wilson v. State, No. 21A-CR-2308, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 2, 2022).
Pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17, a trial court’s authority to modify a sentence does not extend to parole.
Yeary v. State, No. 21A-CR-1080, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 7, 2022).
The plain language of the drug-induced homicide statute, Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.5, requires the State to prove the defendant’s conduct is both the proximate cause and the actual cause of the victim’s death, and while the jury is expected to rely on its collective common sense and knowledge acquired through everyday experiences, the trial court has a duty to define for the jury words of a technical or legal meaning normally not understood by jurors unversed in the law.
State v. Pemberton, No. 21A-CR-668, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 31, 2022).
Absent specific exceptions outlined by our legislature in other statutes, acts that would be criminal offenses if committed by adults are defined by Indiana law as delinquent acts when committed by individuals under age eighteen, and Indiana law gives exclusive jurisdiction of delinquency proceedings to juvenile courts.