Defined “improvement to real property” as used in Indiana Code 32-30-1-5 as “(1) an addition to or betterment of real property; (2) that is permanent; (3) that enhances the real property’s capital value; (4) that involves the expenditure of labor or money; (5) that is designed to make the property more useful or valuable; and (6) that is not an ordinary repair.”
Supreme
Whiting v. State, No. 38S05-1206-CR-345, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 19, 2012).
Procedural default loss of a juror-bias claim when the defendant fails to exhaust her peremptory challenges is not amenable to fundamental-error review.
Berry v. State, No. 49S04-1110-CR-611, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 20, 2012).
Affirms trial court’s rejection of the defendant’s “settled insanity” defense, since there was some evidence that the defendant’s behavior was the result of his voluntary abuse of alcohol.
Baker v. State, No. 89S01-1109-CR-543, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 12, 2012).
Evidence that defendant, who broke and entered, had opened cupboards and drawers was sufficient to support an inference that the defendant was looking for something to take and consequently had intended to commit theft when he broke and entered.
Harris v. State, No. 34S02-1203-CR-169, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 16, 2012).
A defendant need not show prejudice to obtain reversal relief from a violation of a local anti-forum shopping rule filed pursuant to Criminal Rule 2.2.