LWOP sentencing order was deficient for failure to include judge’s personal statement that LWOP was the appropriate sentence.
Supreme
State v. Vanderkolk, No. 79S04-1411-CR-718, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., June 9, 2015).
Probationers or community corrections participants may, pursuant to a valid search condition or advance consent, authorize warrantless searches without reasonable suspicion; but language of home detention participant’s conditions of participation authorized searches only with probable cause.
State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Earl, No. 36S05-1408-CT-562, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 9, 2015).
Declines to adopt a bright line rule on the admissibility of insurance coverage, but admission of the coverage limit contained within the insurance policy was relevant background information that would help the jury understand the relationship between the parties and the basis for the lawsuit itself in this case.
In re I.B., No. 82S05-1502-AD-63, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 11, 2015).
“Under the circumstances of this case, Indiana Code section 31-19-11-1(c) regrettably bars an adoption that, to all appearances, would otherwise be in I.B. and W.B.’s best interests. But that does not make the statute unconstitutional as applied, because its prohibitions are rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose and do not discriminate against a suspect class. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment on both adoption petitions and remand…”
Griffith v. State, No. 48S02-1501-CR-10, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., June 2, 2015).
Under Indiana Evidence Rule 613(b), extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement may be admitted before or after a witness is given “opportunity to explain or deny” the statement as the Rule requires, but confronting the witness first remains the “preferred method.”