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.
Supreme
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.
Goston v. State, No. 23S-CT-5, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 9, 2023).
Trial court acted within its discretion to consider defendants’ motion for summary judgment after the deadline set in the case management order. The local rule on case management orders should be read in harmony with the Trial Rules.
Young v. State, No. 22S-CR-306, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 13, 2022).
Evidence of guilt reviewed on appeal need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to pass muster. It is sufficient that a reasonable jury could have inferred that the defendant committed the crimes charged; the weighing of all the evidence and resolution of conflicts is left to the jury
In re Civil Commitment of B.N., No. 22S-MH-408, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 16, 2022).
When a party objects to a hearing being held remotely, good cause for proceeding remotely over the objection requires particularized and specific factual support. Mere mention of “the COVID-19 pandemic” was insufficient.