Affirms “this basic premise” – “[w]here a trial court’s reason for imposing a sentence greater than the advisory sentence includes material elements of the offense, absent something unique about the circumstances that would justify deviating from the advisory sentence, that reason is ‘improper as a matter of law.’”
Supreme
Guilmette v. State, No. 71S04-1310-CR-705, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 13, 2014).
Police do not need a separate warrant to test lawfully seized evidence which is unrelated to the crime for which the defendant is in custody.
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.
Fischer v. Heymann, No. 49S02-1309-PL-620, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 17, 2014).
Responding to the plaintiff’s demand was not the defendant’s only option to mitigate damages, but the trial court was within its discretion to reduce damages.
Camoplast Crocker, LLC v. Magic Circle Corp., No. 29S02-1407-CT-476, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 21, 2014).
Plaintiff’s amendment of the complaint was proper when it was filed before the two-year limitation period expired, even though the court granted the motion to amend after the limitation period expired.