Clarifies that, in an eminent domain case, if statutory procedures are not followed, the trial court is not permitted to hear the issue of damages because legal error was committed.
Supreme
Becker v. State, No. 45S03-1301-CR-9, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Aug. 22, 2013).
Under a supreme court 2011 decision, Indiana ex post facto law would have allowed lifetime sex offender registration to apply to Becker, but a 2008 trial court ruling to the contrary was res judicata against the State on the issue, as the local prosecutor’s representation in the 2008 litigation was in privity with the DOC’s intervention in 2011 seeking to impose lifetime registration status based on the 2011 opinion.
Garrett v. State, No. 49S04-1207-PC-431, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Aug. 28, 2013).
“[T]he ‘actual evidence’ test . . . is applicable to cases in which there has been an acquittal on one charge and retrial on another charge after a hung jury.”
Oney v. State, No. 49S05-1212-CR-668, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Aug. 28, 2013).
“Although a defendant who pleads guilty to driving while suspended as a habitual traffic violator may not later challenge the plea contending that an underlying offense has been set aside on grounds of procedural error, a defendant may be entitled to relief where an underlying offense has been set aside on grounds of material error.”
Schoettmer v. Wright, No. 49S04-1210-CT-607, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Aug. 27, 2013).
Equitable estoppel can prevent defendant from using the Indiana Tort Claims Act time limit as a defense.