Our Supreme Court’s double jeopardy analysis in Powell applies where the question is whether the State has alleged or shown discrete, prosecutable acts under identical statutory language, and our Supreme Court’s analysis in Wadle applies where the question is whether the State has alleged or used the same evidence to show violations of different statutory language. However, in certain circumstances, both Wadle and Powell may apply.
P. Felix
Heitz v. State, No. 24A-CR-802, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 6, 2025).
When a trial court’s local practice conflicts with Criminal Rule 4(C), the local practice is invalid, and delays arising from noncompliance with such practices cannot be charged to defendants.
Stafford v. Stafford, No. 24A-DC-2457, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 21, 2025).
Eliminating all overnights amounts to a restriction on parenting time.
Payne v. State, No. 23A-CR-2325, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 13, 2024).
A trial court may evaluate a defendant’s conduct before, during, and after trial, in addition to prior competency evaluations in determining whether they are competent to stand trial.
In re M.H., No. 23A-JC-2959, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 4, 2024).
With good cause, a court may sua sponte set a CHINS factfinding hearing beyond the 60-day deadline imposed by Ind. Code 31-34-11-1(a). However, judicial economy alone is not sufficient good cause.