Trial court should impose a narrower internet restriction that is more in line defendant’s crime rather than a complete internet ban.
N. Vaidik
Sheetz v. Sheetz, No. 01A05-1601-DR-80, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2016).
Husband is equitably estopped from rebutting the presumption that he is child’s biological father because he told his wife that he would raise the child as his own, prohibited her from telling the child’s biological father that she was pregnant and also instructed her not to seek support from the biological father or to file a paternity action.
Williams v. State, 82A04-1602-CR-295, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 10, 2016).
State did not properly authenticate evidence to establish a chain of custody for blood sample that tested positive for meth.
State v. Summers, No. 09A02-1604-MI-933, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 19, 2016).
Applying the intent-effects test, no ex post facto violation occurred when defendant committed the underlying offense in Illinois before Indiana’s definition of sex offender had been amended to include an obligation to register as a sex offender.
Sturdivant v. State, 08A02-1601-CR-186, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2016).
Trial courts are in the best position to assess the competency of criminal defendants and the knowingness and intelligence of waivers of the right to counsel, and that determination will only be reversed if it was clearly erroneous.