Clerk, a garnishee defendant, is liable when she received a motion for proceedings supplemental to garnish the bond in an unrelated criminal case, and the clerk did not provide notice of the lien in the criminal case.
R. Altice
Dobeski v. State, No. 49A02-1603-CR-440, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 12, 2016).
When computing the time allowed to register as a sex offender, the day of the triggering event should be excluded.
Beedy v. State, No. 48A02-1510-CR-1703, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., August 22, 2016).
Defendant is entitled to raise a “Romeo and Juliet” defense under Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(e) if he has not committed a prior sex offense against a person other than the victim.
Doe #1 v. Ind. Dept. of Child Svcs., No. 49A02-1506-CT-682, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2016).
Under common law, DCS had a duty to protect the identity of a caller who reported children as being in need of service.
Luke v. State, No. 15A01-1409-CR-407, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 24, 2016).
Conviction for stalking four victims, based on conduct spanning January 2012 to February 2014, violated actual-evidence double jeopardy principles when defendant had been convicted a month earlier for invasion of privacy committed against three of the same victims for conduct spanning three days in January 2014. The State presented substantial evidence of the three-day course of conduct in the subsequent trial; and both cases alleged a violation of the same previously issued no-contact order.