The trial court erred by striking some of the language included in the expungement statute (Ind. Code s 35-38-9-10(c)) from its order granting expungement; the language should either by left in its entirety or left out in its entirety.
M. Robb
White v. State, No. 22A-CR-00978, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 8, 2022).
A traffic stop based on an “inactive” registration is not justified because the General Assembly has not made “inactive” registration an infraction.
Saucerman v. State, No. 22A-CR-501, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 17, 2022).
A trial court’s failure to ensure that a probationer who admits to a probation violation has received the advisements as required under Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(e) constitutes a fundamental violation of the probationer’s due process rights.
Tippecanoe School Corp. v. Reynolds, No. 21A-CT-1482, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 7, 2022).
Negligent supervision in sports is not a separate cause of action; an analysis of a coach’s individual actions related to supervising her athletes and the choices made are subsumed by a review of whether that coach was intentional or reckless in her conduct.
Chapman v. State, No. 21A-CR-421, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 23, 2022).
Ind. Code § 35-49-2-2(1)(matter or performance harmful to minors) does not require explicit depiction of the acts or condition, but it allows for the acts and/or condition to be described or represented in any form. A judge’s preliminary determination of obscenity, or that material is probably harmful to minors under Ind. Code § 35-49-2-4, is not evidence on which the parties can rely at trial or relay to the jury, and the jury should not be made aware of the trial court’s preliminary decision.