Protective order petitioner has a burden of showing that “domestic or family violence has occurred” and that respondent “represents a credible threat to the safety” of the petitioner or petitioner’s child. Trial courts need only determine whether the petitioner has made the requisite showings by a preponderance of the evidence.
Supreme
Owen v. State, No. 21S-LW-333, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 8, 2023).
The record reflects that the statutory aggravators were supported by sufficient evidence and the jury was properly instructed; defendant was properly sentenced to life without parole.
Oberhansley v. State, No. 20S-LW-620, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 17, 2023).
The jury’s LWOP recommendation implicitly reflected the necessary weighing determination; the trial court did not err in imposing the sentence. Considering his character and the nature of the crimes, the sentence was not inappropriate.
Davis v. State, No. 22S-CR-253, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 3, 2023).
If a defendant wishes to challenge their guilty plea, they cannot do so through a direct appeal; the issue of whether a defendant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary should instead be pursued by filing a petition for post-conviction relief.
M.H. v. State, No. 22S-JV-251, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 19, 2023).
When a decision implicates a new jurisdictional rule, as in K.C.G. v. State, courts are to apply the principle of non-retroactivity, rather than vacate a final judgment for voidness, unless the jurisdictional error compromised the reliability or fairness of the proceedings.