Evidence of internet searches on sexual topics are not admissible under Indiana Rule of Evidence 412 when the defense is unable to establish that the victim had exclusive control of the device upon which the searches were conducted.
R. Altice
Martin v. State, No. 19A-CR-183, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 11, 2019).
Defendant was improperly sentenced for a crime – Level 3 Felony robbery – for which he had not been convicted because the State did not allege the use of a deadly weapon as an enhancement of the robbery offense, and the jury was never instructed on that crime.
Wallick v. Inman, No. 18A-CT-2519, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 7, 2019).
The trial judge has broad discretion to rehabilitate jurors and deny for-cause challenges. The trial judge properly denied for-cause challenges after asking the prospective jurors if they could set aside personal biases, beliefs, and prejudices and follow instructions as given.
Howard v. State, No. 18A-CR-1830, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 30, 2019).
The trial court abused its discretion when it permitted the State to amend the information two business days before the start of the trial as it did not give defendant a reasonable opportunity to prepare for and defend against the new counts.
Himsel, et al. v. Himsel, et al., No 18A-PL-645, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 22, 2019).
The Right to Farm Act, withstanding a constitutional challenge, bars plaintiffs’ nuisance, negligence, and trespass claims.