To recommend LWOP, the jury must (1) find the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one statutory aggravator exists, (2) provide a special verdict form for each aggravating circumstance alleged, and (3) find that any mitigating circumstances that exist are outweighed by the aggravating circumstance or circumstances. If those three steps are satisfied and the jury recommends LWOP, the court shall sentence the defendant accordingly. Moreover, depending on the circumstances of the crime(s), consecutive life sentences for each murder victim does not render the sentence disproportionate.
Supreme
Foster v. First Merchants Bank, N.A., No. 24S-PL-75, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 27, 2024).
Even though plaintiff had not taken any action in a case for over a decade, because the defendant moved for dismissal under T.R. 41(E) after the plaintiff had resumed prosecution, the trial court improperly dismissed the case.
B.K. and S.K. v. State, No. 23S-JV-344, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 18, 2024).
Because the juvenile restitution statute does not have a judgment lien provision, a juvenile court lacks the authority to enforce a restitution order as a civil judgment lien.
Duke Energy Ind., LLC v. Noblesville, No. 23S-PL-130, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 30, 2024).
Both trial courts and the utility regulatory commission can hear a municipality’s action to enforce an ordinance, but only the commission can decide whether an ordinance implicating a public-utility function is unreasonable.
Red Lobster Restaurants, LLC v. Fricke, No. 23S‐CT‐304, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 21, 2024).
A plaintiff‐debtor’s omission of a lawsuit from their bankruptcy asset schedule does not deprive them of standing to pursue that lawsuit. Judicial estoppel does not bar the claim if the bankruptcy court permits the plaintiff‐debtor to cure their omission by amending their asset schedule.