Pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 103, a defendant preserves a continuing objection to the admission of evidence for appellate review simply by making a timely objection to that evidence during trial, identifying the specific ground for the objection, and receiving the trial court’s definitive ruling on the objection on the record at trial.
P. Mathias
Chastain v. State, No. 25A-XP-1105, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 28, 2025).
Petitioner could not supplement his expungement petition to expunge the records from a case that was ineligible for expungement at the time that the petition was filed.
Planned Parenthood Great Nw., Haw., Alaska, Ind., Ky., Inc. v. Med. Licensing Bd. of Ind., No. 24A-PL-2467, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 11, 2025).
The right to an abortion that is protected under Article 1, Section 1 requires the abortion to be a necessary procedure to protect the woman’s life or to protect her from a serious health risk, and requires the determination that an abortion is necessary to be a reasonable medical judgment. The statutory Hospital Requirement also does not impair the constitutional right to an abortion.
White v. State, No. 24A-CR-2592, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 25, 2025).
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.
Jones v. State, No. 24A-CR-1102, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 14, 2025).
The right to counsel under Article 1, Section 13 attaches at the point of arrest by an Indiana official.