Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Indiana Code in book form. The Indiana Code is the code of laws for the U.S. state of Indiana. The contents are the codification of all the laws currently in effect within Indiana. With roots going back to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the laws of Indiana have been revised many times.
Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that determined a U.S. state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.
The Court had recognized these two rights on competency for some time. In Dusky v.United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), and in Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975), the Court established the standard for competency to stand trial—the defendant must have a "rational and factual understanding" of the nature of the proceedings, and must be able to rationally assist his lawyer in defending him.
An Indianapolis woman accused of backing her car into a building she believed held an “Israeli school" was ordered Wednesday by a judge to stay away from synagogues and other Jewish religious ...
To commit a criminal offence of ordinary liability (as opposed to strict liability) the prosecution must show both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). A person cannot be guilty of an offence for his actions alone; there must also be the requisite intention, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence at the relevant time.
She said other Level 6 felonies, such as criminal recklessness, domestic battery and theft, are sometimes eligible for pretrial diversion, "depending on the unique facts and circumstances of the ...
He was arrested on multiple charges including multiple DUI's and criminal recklessness while driving. Family members told the IndyStar that two of the children were able to come home Wednesday ...
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a prison official's "deliberate indifference" to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment.