Under the second step of the double jeopardy test announced in the Indiana Supreme Court’s Wadle opinion, when assessing whether an offense is factually included, a court may examine only the facts as presented on the face of the charging instrument. Moreover, where ambiguities exist in a charging instrument about whether one offense is factually included in another, courts must construe those ambiguities in the defendant’s favor, and thus find a presumptive double jeopardy violation. In this event, the State can later rebut this presumption at the third step of the Wadle test.
Supreme
WEOC, Inc. v. Niebauer, No. 23S-CT-184, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 12, 2024).
The Dram Shop Act modified common-law liability against entities that furnish alcohol, but did not eliminate it.
Teising v. State, No. 24S-CR-55, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 15, 2024).
The maxim that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” does not relieve the State of its burden to prove criminal intent, even when the defendant bases their claimed lack of intent on a misunderstanding of the civil law.
State ex. rel. Allen v. Carroll Cir. Ct., No. 23S‐OR‐311, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 8, 2024).
The trial court lacked the authority to remove counsel without considering other, less drastic options and weighing the prejudice to the defendant.
Morehouse v. Dux North, LLC, No. 23S-PL-71, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 8, 2024).
For an implied easement by prior use, the claimed servitude must predate the severance creating the separate parcels. For an implied easement of necessity, the claimed necessity need arise only at severance and not before.