The abuse of discretion standard of review applies to the review of trial court bond forfeiture rulings.
Graff v. State, No. 23A-CR-2546, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 28, 2025).
Where a suspect has not been arrested, arraigned or indicted, a polygraph examination and post-testing interrogation do not constitute critical stages upon which the right to counsel attaches. Evidence that a polygraph examination directly preceded a confession, occurred in the exact same room, and involved the same officer to which the confession was given may be admissible. Consistent with Indiana Rule of Evidence 106, the preliminaries to a polygraph examination, the examination itself, and the subsequent police interview are all part of one recorded statement, and fairness dictates that neither party should be able to decide that the jury will hear only the parts of the statement it deems favorable to its case.
Automotive Finance Corp. v. Liu, No. 24S-CC-223, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 23, 2025).
Trial court could not use Trial Rule 60(B)(3) to grant relief on grounds that the defendant could have raised in a motion to correct error.
Waggoner v. Anonymous Healthcare System, Inc., No. 24A-CT-469, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 23, 2025).
In a medical malpractice case, trial court could not address whether healthcare provider was statutorily immune from liability as a preliminary question of law.
Jennings v. Smiley, No. 24S-CT-186, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 24, 2025).
The party seeking production of a smartphone must provide some evidence of the device’s use at a time when it could have been a contributing cause of the incident litigated and must describe the data sought with reasonable particularity.