Where a videotaped interview of a child victim is entered into evidence erroneously because it did not meet the cited exceptions to the rule against hearsay, where the defendant had no right to confront the child victim, and where the record contains no other evidence of the elements of the alleged delinquent act, the admission of the videotaped interview constitutes fundamental error.
M. May
R.M. v. Ind. Dept. of Child Svcs., No. 22A-XP-1661, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 15, 2023).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner’s request to expunge DCS’s substantiated reports about her because she did not show those records had insufficient current probative value to justify their retention by DCS for future reference. Petitioner currently lives with a child and is in college with her future field of work unknown.
Easterday v. Everhart, No. 22A-DC-1510, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2023).
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.
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.