McCullough v. State, No. 49S02-0809-CR-508, __ N.E.2d (Ind., Feb. 10, 2009)

(1) in the exercise of the appellate authority to review and revise criminal sentences, a court may decrease or increase the sentence; (2) the State may not by appeal or cross-appeal initiate a challenge to a sentence imposed by a trial court; and (3) if a defendant seeks appellate review and revision of a sentence, the State may respond and urge the imposition of a greater sentence without the necessity of proceeding by cross-appeal.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Indianapolis Marion County Public Library v. Charlier Clark & Linnard P.C., No. 06A05-0804-CV-239, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 6, 2009)

Because plaintiff’s claims were for economic losses that arose from plaintiff’s complaint that it did not receive the benefit of its bargain, the damages claimed were not recoverable in tort and were best relegated to contract law.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Smyth v. Hester, No. 29A02-0803-CV-237, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 12, 2009)

Trial court’s order for attorney fees was remanded for further consideration and explanation, because it did not provide any insight as to the reason for the award of attorney fees, i.e., what the trial court found to be frivolous, unreasonable, and bad faith conduct.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Oatts v. State, No. 49A02-0805-CR-447, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 20, 2009)

The “sexual innocence inference” is that a young victim’s ability to describe the charged sexual molestation is proof that the molestation occurred; adopts the “compromise position” which admits an unrelated prior instance of sexual experience for the victim if the defendant shows that the prior sexual act occurred and that the prior sexual act was sufficiently similar to the charged sexual act to give the victim the knowledge to imagine the charged conduct.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Lafayette v. State, No. 45A03-0803-CR-118, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 23, 2009)

In plurality opinion, concurring judge and dissenting judge take position that rape defendant puts his intent at issue for purposes of Evidence Rule 404(b) when he asserts sex was consensual; lead opinion takes contrary position.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion