Rejects defendant’s claim that attorneys were ineffective for not arguing a certain case because defendant mischaracterized that case.
S. David
T.P. Orthodontics, Inc. v. Kesling, No. 46S03-1405-MI-337, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 3, 2014).
To balance the interests in accessing the special litigation committee’s report in a derivative suit, the Court remanded for “(1) TPO to specifically identify privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work product contained within the SLC report; (2) the trial court to review in camera the revised redacted SLC report and privilege designations to determine whether the designated material is in fact privileged; (3) the trial court to then order the release of the revised SLC report not protected by privilege to the sibling shareholders; and (4) the trial court to issue a protective order preventing any party from disclosing the report’s (unredacted) contents.”
Erkins v. State, No. 58S01-1309-CR-586, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 22, 2014).
When charge was conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, the State was not required to prove there was actual serious bodily injury; amendment changing the allegation of the particular conspirator who committed the overt act required for conspiracy was of form only and was properly allowed in this case.
In re K.W., No. 49S02-1407-JT-458., __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 10, 2014).
The trial court abused it discretion by proceeding with a hearing and terminating parental rights in the parent’s absence when the parent was in jail.
Tin Thang v. State, No. 49S04-1402-CR-72, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 27, 2014).
Distinguishing caselaw holding that, for the OWI offense, endangerment cannot be inferred from intoxication alone, affirms public intoxication conviction on basis defendant’s presence while intoxicated with a car at a gas station supported an inference he operated the vehicle while intoxicated and thus committed the public intoxication element of endangering himself or others.