The thirty-seven-month time period between the temporary custody order and the permanent custody order was an extraordinary delay that prejudiced mother and violated her due process rights. Trial courts have a statutory duty under Ind. Code § 31-17-2-6 to expedite custody proceedings.
T. Crone
Hetty, Inc. v. Weems, No. 24A-SC-148, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 14, 2024).
In a small claims matter, defendant was not required to formally plead a nonparty defense.
Tyree v. State, No. 23A-CR-2153, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 14, 2024).
Ind. Code 35-38-4-2(a)(5), which permits the State to appeal “from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence, if the ultimate effect of the order is to preclude further prosecution of one (1) or more counts of an information or indictment,” focuses on the effect of the trial court’s ruling: whether the ruling on the defendant’s motion prevents the State from presenting evidence necessary to prove its case.
Stone v. State, No. 23A-CR-625, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2024).
Convictions based on the same subsection of the rape statute that are mutually exclusive criminal acts — forcible sexual intercourse and forcible other sexual conduct — do not violate double jeopardy.
State v. Lucas, No. 22A-CT-1693, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2023).
The Indiana Tort Claims Act’s discretionary function immunity provision does not apply to a negligent redesign of a highway claim.