In this case, improper communication between bailiff and foreperson was fundamental error.
Criminal
VanPatten v. State, No. 02S03-1205-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2013).
The Evidence Rule 803(4) hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment was not shown to apply, because there was insufficient evidence the six year-old understood the need to provide the forensic nurse with truthful information about the suspected molestation.
Steen v. State, No. 49A02-1211-CR-877, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2013).
Printing of store’s name “H & M” on security tags and store labels was not hearsay under Evidence Rule 801(c) because it was “not capable of being true or not true.”
Guilmette v. State, No. 71A04-1205-CR-250, __ N.E.2 __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 22, 2013).
When authorities have taken an inmate’s clothing for inventory and safekeeping while he awaits trial, the Indiana Constitution requires that they must obtain a warrant to test the clothing regarding an unrelated, uncharged crime.
Erkins v. State, No. 58A01-1205-CR-215, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. Ap., Apr. 23, 2013).
The State may obtain a conviction of Class A conspiracy to commit robbery with proof that the conspirators intended to cause serious bodily injury in committing the robbery.