The plain language of the other-jurisdiction provision of Indiana’s Sex and Violent Offender Act compels registration for individuals with out-of-state registration obligations regardless of the source of those obligations.
R. Altice
Shakur v. Hendrix, No. 23A-CT-1564, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 18, 2024).
DOC inmate’s Section 1983 claims were limited to damages that accrued within the 24-month window before the suit was filed; DOC conduct was not a single, continuous episode of harm.
Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. v. NIBCO, Inc., No. 23A-PL-1343, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2024).
When relief was not available under T.R. 60(B), the trial court could not reinstate the case because it failed to have a T.R. 41(E) hearing before the dismissal.
Wilson v. Wilson, No. 23A-DC-1384, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2023).
Father’s child support was not offset by adult disabled daughter’s monthly Social Security Disability Insurance benefit.
Turner v. State, No. 22A-CR-2404, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 8, 2023).
An evidentiary harpoon occurs when the State deliberately places inadmissible evidence before the jury to prejudice the jurors against the defendant. Where an evidentiary harpoon has been introduced at trial, the reviewing court requires a high level of assurance that the irregularity did not affect the verdict before it will affirm the judgment. It is not enough that the verdict is supported by sufficient evidence; the reviewing court must be able to say with certainty that the improper testimony did not influence the verdict.