Burdick v. Romano, No. 19A-CT-2739, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App, May 5, 2020).

In a case related to an injury caused by a horse in a horse arena, the trial court properly refused to give negligence instructions and properly gave instructions on inherent risks of equine activities and incurred risk.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Pedigo v. State, No. 19A-CR-1848, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 13, 2020).

Under Ind. Code § 9-30-7-3, a law enforcement officer is permitted to offer a subsequent chemical test to a person who the officer has reason to believe operated a vehicle that was involved in a fatal accident or an accident involving serious bodily injury when the officer has first administered a portable breath test that produces negative results, even if the officer does not have probable cause to believe the person is under the influence of a controlled substance or another drug.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Watson v. State, No. 19A-CR-49, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2019).

The one-year speedy trial deadline includes cases involving habitual offender adjudications, and after nearly six and two-thirds years of inexplicable delay—with at least one year of delay directly attributable to the State—there was a Criminal Rule 4(C) violation. Defendant should not have been held to answer to the allegations that he is a habitual offender.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Salyer v. Washington Regular Baptist Church Cemetery, No. 19A-PL-243, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2019).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning a remedy that required the cemetery to provide plaintiff with a different gravesite rather than ordering the cemetery to have the individual buried in the gravesite she had previously purchased reinterred elsewhere so as to restore the gravesite for her use.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

State v. McFarland, No. 18A-CR-2408, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 10, 2019

Trial court properly denied the State’s motion to amend the habitual offender charging information because it would prejudice defendant’s substantial rights and because it was not supported by good cause.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion