Before counsel’s appointment, a trial court must consider a defendant’s pro se motion, like a request for an early trial. After counsel’s appointment, this consideration is left to the trial court’s discretion
Per Curiam
Choi v. Kim, No. 20S-PL-706, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 18, 2020).
Remands for a new trial when trial court erred in communicating with the jury after deliberations began.
Brown v. Ind. Dept. of Environmental Management, No. 20S-MI-609, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 21, 2020).
Vacates the portion of the Court of Appeals decision that makes the broad statement that law-of-the-case doctrine “is applicable only when an appellate court determines a legal issue, not a trial court.”
Kinman v. State, 20S-CR-569, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sep. 28, 2020).
Trial court failed to adhere to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(6) which provides that the trial court “shall make specific findings of fact, and conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a hearing is held.”
Riddle v. Cress, No. 20S-PL-573, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 2, 2020).
A trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion in setting aside a default judgment “so long as there exists even slight evidence of excusable neglect.” Because of this deferential standard of review, the trial court’s decision to set aside default judgment was upheld.