The objective component of self-defense, as adopted by our courts, is analyzed from the standpoint of an ordinary “reasonable person.” The question being presented to the fact-finder is whether an ordinary reasonable person would have responded with deadly force if confronted with the same circumstances that defendant confronted.
R. Altice
Teising v. State, No. 22A-CR-548, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 15, 2022).
The residency statutes illustrate that a person does not change residency by the mere fact of being physically present in another location; rather, the person must have intent to reside in the new location.
Lake Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs v. Lake Cnty. Sheriff, No. 22A-PL-1559, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 16, 2022).
County sheriff has the authority to enter into contracts related to the operation of the jail and the care of its inmates.
Galloway, Jr. v. State, No. 21A-CR-1127, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 24, 2022).
A party who has rendered a witness unavailable for cross-examination through a criminal act may not object to the introduction of hearsay statements by the witness on confrontation grounds.
Crowley v. State, No. 21A-MI-2064, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 16, 2022).
If another state previously subjected a pre-SORA offender to a registration requirement, requiring him to register in Indiana is not punitive. It is irrelevant where or when the conviction occurred, as long as another state imposed a lawful registration obligation on the offender and SORA does not so significantly alter that obligation to result in added punishment.