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.
M. May
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.
Murray v. State, No. 21A-CR-1495__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 11, 2022).
The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is not violated when a defendant is ordered to show their teeth to the jury because doing so is a non-testimonial physical demonstration.