Kowalskey v. State, No. 32A01-1503-CR-99, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2015).

Defendant’s conduct did not waive his right to counsel. His oral and written requests for the trial court to compel discovery were not obstreperous, and trial court had neither adequately advised defendant of the dangers of self-representation nor made necessary findings on whether his conduct under the circumstances constituted knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

In re I.J., No. 57A03-1501-AD-28, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 8, 2015).

The trial court erred in denying a possible father’s (third-party) request for genetic testing for a child born to a married couple who placed the newborn for adoption.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

State v. Taylor, No. 46A04-1407-CR-316, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 10, 2015).

Trial court erred in ordering blanket suppression of all testimony from police officers who invoked their Fifth Amendment rights in connection with eavesdropping on defendant’s discussions with counsel. Officers’ misconduct was egregious, but blanket exclusion was too extreme and Court of Appeals was not willing to presume prejudice to defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. Instead, trial court would need to make individualized determinations of prejudice at trial in light of each witness’s testimony on direct examination.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Levy v. Jackson, No. 29A02-1407-CT-482, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 11, 2015).

Because the trial court’s order sets out the evidence in favor of the verdict for plaintiff but does not mention any of the evidence in favor of a verdict for defendant, it failed to comply with Trial Rule 59(J), and the jury verdict was reinstated.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Jenkins v. State, No. 20A04-1410-CR-489, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2015).

“Breaking” element of burglary was satisfied when defendant gained entry to an apartment by pushing aside a person standing near the entry, then immediately subduing the occupant by force.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion