W.M. v. H.T., No. 20A-AD-403, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 5, 2020).
In an adoption, the trial court must make specific findings as required by Ind. Code § 31-19-9-8(a) if it finds that the father’s consent is not needed.
Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services
In an adoption, the trial court must make specific findings as required by Ind. Code § 31-19-9-8(a) if it finds that the father’s consent is not needed.
A probation condition that requires a defendant to refrain from visiting “businesses that sell sexual devices or aids” is unconstitutionally vague.
Video reenactment may be taken with consent and questions during such reenactment due not amount to custodial interrogation where the officer’s inquiry is merely general on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime or other general questioning of citizens in the fact-finding process.
While possession of a firearm, without more, cannot provide reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop, evasive and aggressive behavior during a consensual encounter regarding an inquiry into possession of a firearm may provide reasonable suspicion to perform an investigatory stop and frisk.
Sentences for multiple drug transactions, which resulted from a State-sponsored sting operation, must run concurrently.
251 N. Illinois Street, Suite 800
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Case Clips are selected decisions of the Indiana appellate courts abstracted for judges by the Indiana Office of Court Services. The full text of Indiana opinions may be retrieved from the Indiana Judicial System website at courts.IN.gov/opinions.
The Indiana Office of Court Services is the staff agency for the Judicial Conference of Indiana and serves Indiana judges and court personnel by providing educational programs, publications, and research assistance.
All content © 2021 Indiana Judicial Center courts.IN.gov