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.
R. Altice
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.
Perkins v. Memorial Hospital of South Bend, No. 18A-CT-1340, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 11, 2019).
Employee’s mistaken belief that he was subpoenaed to testify at an unemployment hearing did not warrant an exception to the at-will employment doctrine.