Under the permissive expungement statute, a trial court may deny an expungement petition after considering the nature and circumstances of the crime,and the petitioner’s character
M. May
Afanador v. State, No. 21A-CR-1000, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 28, 2022).
The State is not prohibited from using two offenses to support separate enhancements under different recidivist offender statutes when the two offenses were not part of the same res gestae.
Ind. Repertory Theatre, No. 21A-PL-628, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 4, 2022).
Insurance policy language “direct physical loss or direct physical damage” did not encompass theatre’s claim for loss of use of its facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic
Lloyd v. Kuznar, No. 21A-CT-1338, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 28, 2021).
Trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claims because she failed to apprise the court of her new address, but the court should have set aside the default judgment on defendant’s counterclaim when the method of service on plaintiff was “nothing more than a mere gesture” because the defendant knew that the address for plaintiff was incorrect.
Beachey v. State, No. 20A-CR-2121, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2021).
The Indiana Supreme Court explicitly established that, beginning on January 1, 2020, “the court should utilize the results of an evidence-based risk assessment approved by the Indiana Office of Court Services, and such other information as the court finds relevant.” Crim. R. 26(B). This requirement cannot be circumvented by simply choosing not to order the preparation of an evidence-based risk assessment.