Trial court abused its discretion in permitting an expert witness to read verbatim into evidence an opinion set forth in an email to the expert witness because it merely served as an improper vehicle to present the otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence.
Keith v. State, No. 18A-CR-1961, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 20, 2019).
An injury to the mind does not qualify as a bodily injury and may not be used to convict on a Level 1 felony burglary of a dwelling resulting in serious bodily injury.
Berryman v. State, No. 18A-XP-2433, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 21, 2019
The term “conviction” includes a verdict of not responsible by reason of insanity (“NRRI”) for purposes of I.C. 35-38-9-1, and an individual so adjudicated may not have that finding expunged.
Brewer v. PACCAR, Inc., No. 18S-CT-451, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 17, 2019).
Component-part manufacturers have no duty under the IPLA to install safety features when it is foreseeable that the final manufacturer will put the component to different uses depending on how it integrates the component into the final product.
Zartman v. Zartman, No. 18A-PL-1071, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 18, 2019).
When the content of a document is at issue in the context of a motion for summary judgment, it is for the court to decide based on the parties’ designated evidence.