A prior conviction or acquittal in another jurisdiction bars a subsequent Indiana state prosecution for the “same conduct.” Indiana statutory double jeopardy analysis centers on comparing the conduct alleged in the charging instruments.
P. Riley
Guthery v. State, No. 21A-CR-711, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2021).
The felony suspendability statute is not a progressive penalty statute, as it does not elevate the seriousness of an offense and its corresponding penalty due to a previous conviction. Rather, it merely limits the discretion of the trial court to order a sentence to be suspended, all within the existing sentencing range for the offense. To that end, the felony suspendability statute is not a sentencing enhancement statute to which double-enhancement analysis applies.
Wheeler v. State, No. 21A-MI-1175, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 17, 2021).
Inmate was not required to plead exhaustion of remedies to state a claim for negligence; his negligence claim was not subject to dismissal under the Screening Statute on that basis.
Duncan v. Barton’s Discounts, LLC, No. 21A-PL-211, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2021).
Possibly incriminating text messages are not protected by the Fifth Amendment in a civil discovery proceeding because the text messages were voluntarily created prior to the issuance of the discovery requests, and they are non-testimonial in nature.
A.S. v. Ind. Dept. of Child Services., No. 20A-JT-1525,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2021).
A successor judge who did not hear the evidence can still certify the recreated record created pursuant to Ind. App. Rule 31.