Where a human law enforcement officer lacks probable cause to enter a vehicle to search, there is no reason why a canine officer should be permitted to enter a vehicle to search, whether that entry is instinctive or not.
P. Mathias
Blackburn v. State, No. 25A-CR-2222, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 6, 2026).
For a fetus to meet the definition of “an individual” under I.C. § 9-13-2-124, the fetus must be viable, meaning the ability to live outside the mother’s womb.
Billingsley v. State, No. 25A-CR-1654, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 30, 2026).
Criminal Rule 4.1(A)(4)’s mandate on trial courts to designate whether and why any delay is excluded from the time period imposes a corresponding duty on the parties to timely object, with a specifically stated ground, to the trial court’s designation of a delay under that Rule in order to preserve appellate review.
Rodriguez v. State, No. 25A-CR-1789, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 18, 2026).
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.
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.