Time to respond to a motion is tolled while a case is removed to federal court; the time period to respond resumes where it left off once the case is remanded to the state court again.
P. Foley
Maze v. State, No. 24A-CR-2596, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 28, 2025).
When determining whether to appoint counsel, trial courts must consider three distinct items—assets, income, and necessary expenses in calculating a defendant’s ability to pay. If the parties fail to provide the information, courts themselves must make inquiries calculated to bring out the necessary evidence.
Kelly v. State, No. 24A-CT-859, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 23, 2024).
The State is not obligated to defend and indemnify a former state agency employee for civil liability stemming from employee’s criminal conduct.
In re J.M., No. 24A-JC-202, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 15, 2024).
Trial court’s decision to modify child custody instead of adjudicating children as CHINS did not deprive parent of a meaningful opportunity to engage in CHINS-related services.
Anderson v. State, No. 23A-CR-02609, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 4, 2024).
The grand jury statutory framework does not mandate that the State submit a matter for deliberation as to whether to issue an indictment. The State need not identify or name the target of the grand jury proceeding and identify the crime that the target was alleged to have committed unless the grand jury proceeds to deliberate on whether to issue an indictment.