“Given the uniqueness that pervades different family units, strict standards on the amount of permissible visitation under the Grandparent Visitation Act would be difficult to craft. As such, trial courts should be able to consider the various circumstances presented in each individual case to determine what is in the child’s best interest.”
Supreme
Hall v. State, No. 49S05-1412-CR-728, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 2, 2015).
Trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel discovery, even if in violation of the Sixth Amendment, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Satterfield v. State, No. 63S00-1401-LW-306, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. June 26, 2015).
Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting officer’s lay-witness testimony that an allegedly mentally ill defendant was “evasive” during police questioning.
Smith v. State, ___ N.E.3d ___, No. 71S04-1506-CD-364 (Ind. June 26, 2015).
State did not violate Due Process by knowingly relying on perjured testimony, nor was testimony “incredibly dubious”; co-defendant’s trial testimony was not necessarily false nor internally contradictory, but merely inconsistent with factual basis for her guilty plea in prior proceedings.
Russell v. State, No. 84S01-1409-CR-583, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. June 29, 2015).
Plea agreement was enforceable despite its misstatement that the defendant’s consecutive sentences were capped by statute. Defendant was entitled to the benefit of his plea; sentence was mistakenly capped, but not necessarily illegal.