Pava v. State, No. 19A-CR-716, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 25, 2020).

The objective reasonableness standard provides sufficient notice of what conduct crosses the line from mere discipline of a child to battery.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Reynolds v. State, No. 19A-CR-880, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 14, 2020).

Admission of a recorded forensic interview is prohibited if the child victim provides live trial testimony unless the Rules of Evidence provide an independent basis for admission. The forensic interviewer is also permitted to testify provided that: 1) the interview occurred soon after initial disclosure; (2) the interview was not lengthy; (3) the interviewer did not ask leading questions, and the victim’s parents were not participants; and (4) the interview occurred before a sexual assault examination.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

McAnalley v. State, No. 18A-CR-1099, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 18, 2019).

Defendant is permitted to stipulate to his status as a felon in a trial for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. When a passenger in an automobile is arrested on a warrant, search of the passenger compartment is permissible under both the Indiana and federal constitutions, based on suspicious behavior and/or admission by the passenger of ownership of contraband in the passenger side of the vehicle.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Trimnell v. State, No. 18A-CR-987, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 31, 2018).

Drug dealer who supplied drug that eventually attributed to the death of his customer could not be charged under the felony murder statute when his conduct was not the mediate or immediate cause of death.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

D.M. v. State, No. 49A02-1711-JV-2708, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 8, 2018).

When juvenile defendant’s attorney vigorously argued in favor of placing him on probation and submitted a plan for the juvenile court’s review, the court’s failure to specifically ask juvenile defendant if he wanted to make a statement was not a blatant violation of basic principles, did not pose a potential of substantial harm, and did not deprive him of fundamental due process. However, courts are strongly encouraged to afford juvenile delinquents the opportunity to address the court before final disposition.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion