When a party’s first appearance in a case is made in person when it should have been virtual, the court should be hesitant to treat that appearance as defiant or otherwise improper. A parent who requests a contested CHINS fact-finding hearing has a constitutional right to that hearing, and a parent does not forfeit that right by appearing in person to a virtual hearing.
N. Vaidik
Theobald v. State, No. 21A-CR-2746, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 30, 2022).
The “new-crime exception” to the Miranda exclusionary rule applies when a statement is made by a person who is subject to custodial interrogation but not given Miranda warnings. Under such circumstances, the statement is still admissible if the statement itself is evidence of a new crime.
White v. Szalasny, No. 21A-CC-2063, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 20, 2022).
Indiana Security Deposit Statute does not limit a fee award to certain stages of the proceeding; a judge has discretion to award of fees relating to the fee petition.
Reyes v. State, No. 21A-CR-2646, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 6, 2022).
Because Indiana Jury Rule 26(a) affords trial courts the option to give final instructions before or after closing arguments, a court can do either without abusing its discretion.
Harris v. State, No. 21A-CR-1315, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 21, 2022).
Because the jury’s only role under the current habitual-offender statute is to determine whether the defendant has the requisite prior convictions, the defendant is not entitled to testify about the circumstances surrounding his prior convictions.