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. Mathias
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.
England v. Siebe, No. 24A-CT-497, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 4, 2024).
Trial court properly granted TR 21(B)(1) motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when plaintiff’s claim fell under the Worker’s Compensation Act. Plaintiff was an employee of defendant’s sibling corporation and the Act defines “employer” to expressly include “a parent corporation and its subsidiaries,” which “shall each be considered joint employers” of the injured employee.
M.S. v. State, 24A-JV-715, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 5, 2024).
The exception to the dangerous possession of a firearm statute, parental permission to possess, is an affirmative defense and not an element of the offense.
Emslander v. Baine, No. 24A-DC-1138, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 18, 2024).
Technical noncompliance with the parent relocation statute is insufficient to support the grant of a relocation.