Where parents executed consents for one person to adopt their children, then (without withdrawing the first consents) executed subsequent consents for two other people to adopt their children, neither Indiana’s adoption statutes nor public policy prohibits the subsequent consents.
N. Vaidik
Weatherspoon v. State, No. 45A03-0809-CR-466, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 2, 2009)
Because Jury Rule 20(a)(8) makes a clear distinction between discussions and deliberations, and because there is no evidence that the alternates participated in deliberations, trial court properly instructed jury that alternates were permitted to discuss the evidence during recesses from trial, but not deliberations.
Barber v. State, No. 49A02-0901-CR-34, __ N.E.2d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 17, 2009)
When there was no evidence defense discovery of exculpatory witnesses the weekend before trial was in bad faith, and prejudice to State from a continuance was minimal, trial court reversibly erred in denying a continuance and applying instead a hard deadline for the witness list to exclude the witnesses.
Caruthers v. State, No. 46A05-0810-CR-623, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 15, 2009)
When jurors told bailiff during trial that defendant or his family had intimidated them, it was fundamental error for trial court not to examine jurors to determine what they had been exposed to and whether they could remain impartial.
Dowell v. State, No. 32A01-0810-PC-508, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 30, 2009)
Applies “prison mailbox rule” to P-C.R. 1 proceedings.