Flooding issues on caused by Town’s drainage plan are properly analyzed as a per se permanent taking and that case is remanded for the trial court to decide (1) whether the flooding here amounted to a substantial permanent physical invasion of the Property (including that portion lying within the drainage easement), and (2) for a final determination of damages.
Supreme
Leshore v. State, No. 23S-CR-51, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 28, 2023).
When confronted with a petition under Post-Conviction Rule 2, seeking dispensation from otherwise firm deadlines and their decisive consequences, judges must ask, “was it [Petitioner’s] fault?” And if not, “did [Petitioner] act quickly enough thereafter?” Trial courts should take these questions up in sequence, though a negative answer to either one can be enough to bar relief.
Means v. State, No. 23S-CR-26, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 1, 2023).
After the Court of Appeals accepts a discretionary interlocutory appeal, it may later dismiss the appeal on non-jurisdictional grounds, although its general reluctance to do so is appropriate. In addition, orders in limine are eligible for discretionary interlocutory review.
Doroszko v. State, No. 23S-CR-25, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 1, 2023).
Pursuant to TR 47(D), trial courts must permit parties or their counsel to question prospective jurors directly. The trial court may also examine the jurors. As part of its own examination, the court may, but does not have to, include questions the parties submit to the court in writing. If the court elects to examine the prospective jurors, it is within its discretion to decide whether its examination or the parties’ examination will occur first, but whenever the trial court examines the prospective jurors, it must allow the parties an opportunity to supplement the court’s inquiry by posing their own additional questions directly to the prospective jurors.
Carmack v. State, No. 21S-LW-00471, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 12, 2023).
Sudden heat is characterized as anger, rage, resentment, or terror sufficient to obscure the reason of an ordinary person, preventing deliberation and premeditation, excluding malice, and rendering a person incapable of cool reflection. Here, the State carried its evidentiary burden in negating the mitigating factor and voluntary manslaughter requirement of “sudden heat,” and Defendant’s murder conviction and LWOP sentence.