A petitioner seeking judicial review of an agency action must file with the trial court the agency record, defined by the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act, or the petition will be dismissed.
Supreme
Campbell v. State, No. 13S05-1410-PC-682, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 30, 2014).
Indiana Pattern Jury Instructions – Criminal No. 9.05’s second sentence in its “intentionally” definition (“[i]f a person is charged with intentionally causing a result by his conduct, it must have been his conscious objective not only to engage in the conduct but also to cause the result”) “represents a correct statement of the law.”
Lyons v. Richmond Cmty. School Corp., No. 89S04-1312-PL-788, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 28, 2014).
Because whether a plaintiff has complied with the requirements of the ITCA is one of law, but the answer may depend upon the resolution of disputed facts, the issue should be handled by a carefully drafted jury instruction.
Carpenter v. State, No. 02S05-1404-CR-246, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 21, 2014).
Police’s warrantless home entry through open back door to retrieve an aggressive and bloody dog violated the Indiana Constitution, Article I, § 11 protection against unreasonable search.
Oswalt v. State, No. 35S02-1401-CR-10, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 22, 2014).
Parties satisfy “the exhaustion rule” required for “appellate review of for-cause challenges to prospective jurors” “the moment they use their final peremptory challenge” – regardless of whether the final peremptory is used to strike “a candidate they consider undesirable” or instead is used to cure the trial court’s refusal to strike an allegedy incompetent one for cause.” And parties who comply with the exhaustion rule and also show they were unable to remove any objectionable juror because they had no peremptories left may have appellate review of any denial of a motion to strike for cause, even if no challenged juror actually served on the jury.