Articles

Opinions June 24, 2021

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kennic T. Brown v. State of Indiana
20A-CR-2261
Criminal. Affirms the denial of Kennic Brown’s motion to dismiss his charge of Level 6 felony battery against a public safety officer. Finds the disciplinary action taken by the Indiana Department of Correction against Brown for his conduct violation does not preclude the state’s criminal prosecution of him for the same act. Also finds Brown’s motion to dismiss the criminal charge against him on double jeopardy grounds was correctly denied.

Read More

Opinions June 24, 2021

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kennic T. Brown v. State of Indiana
20A-CR-2261
Criminal. Affirms the denial of Kennic Brown’s motion to dismiss his charge of Level 6 felony battery against a public safety officer. Finds the disciplinary action taken by the Indiana Department of Correction against Brown for his conduct violation does not preclude the state’s criminal prosecution of him for the same act. Also finds Brown’s motion to dismiss the criminal charge against him on double jeopardy grounds was correctly denied.

Read More

Opinions June 23, 2021

Indiana Court of Appeals
Thomas D. Hunter v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-PC-1293
Post-conviction. Affirms the denial of Thomas Hunter’s petition for post-conviction relief following his guilty plea to felony murder. Finds Hunter failed to prove he was denied due process based on an alleged Brady violation or that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Read More

High court backs businesses challenging California labor law

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with California agriculture businesses in their challenge to a state regulation that gives unions access to farm property in order to organize workers. As a result of the ruling, California will have to modify or abandon the regulation put in place in 1975 after the efforts of labor leader Cesar Chavez.

Read More

Opinions June 22, 2021

Indiana Supreme Court
State of Indiana v. Justin Jones
21S-CR-50
Criminal. Reverses an order requiring a confidential informant in Justin Jones’ case to have a face-to-face interview with opposing counsel. Finds that an informant’s identity is inherently revealed through their physical appearance at a face-to-face interview. Also finds that when a defendant requests such an interview, the state has met its threshold burden to show the informer’s privilege applies. Finally, finds the Marion Superior Court did not apply the established balancing test before ordering disclosure. Remands.

Read More