To establish admissibility based on the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, witnesses’ statements to police officers in a recording must demonstrate, among other things, contemporaneity between the events perceived and the declarations about those events. Moreover, it is the proponent’s burden to establish the strong showing of authenticity and competency for the admissibility of photographs used as substantive evidence under the silent-witness theory.
Page v. State, 21A-CR-90, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 6, 2021).
The “valid prescription” requirement is intended to assure the prescription was not obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit and thus, an expired prescription is still a “valid prescription” under Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(a).
State v. Riggs, 20A-CR-2144, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2021).
Any substantive provisions of the Child Deposition Statute, Ind. Code § 35-40-5-11.5, do not exempt the procedural provisions of the Statute from the general rule that the Indiana Trial Rules supersede conflicting procedural statutes. The procedural provisions of the Child Deposition Statute conflict with the trial rules, and therefore the procedural provisions are unenforceable.
Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. Dial, No. 20A-CT-2382, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2021).
A proposed complaint before the IDOI is not void ab initio because it was filed in the name of a deceased individual as administrator of the estate of a deceased alleged victim of malpractice.
A.S. v. Ind. Dept. of Child Services., No. 20A-JT-1525,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2021).
A successor judge who did not hear the evidence can still certify the recreated record created pursuant to Ind. App. Rule 31.