The trial court abused its discretion when it gave the sudden emergency jury instruction with no evidence to support it. Because the sudden emergency instruction was given and emphasized in closing argument, a new trial is warranted.
Leatherman v. State, No. 47A04-1711-CR-2711, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 9, 2018).
An individual participating in a needle exchange program may be found guilty of possession of paraphernalia if he intended to use syringes for unlawful ends; however, to sustain a conviction for maintaining a common nuisance for the unlawful delivery of a controlled substance from a vehicle, the State must show that it has been used on more than one occasion for that purpose.
Gresk v. Demetris, No. 49S02-1711-MI-686, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 10, 2018).
Indiana’s anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) statute protects a person’s actions “in furtherance of” his or her right of petition or free speech and “in connection with a public issue”; the statute is inapplicable to a doctor that reported suspected child abuse.
Cosgray v. French Lick Resort & Casino, No. 59A01-1710-CT-2512 ,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 9, 2018).
Hotel did not owe plaintiff a duty to protect her from a criminal attack by an unknown assailant on their premises.
State v. Neff, No. 18A02-1708-IF-1933, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 11, 2018).
An officeholder need not abandon each and every statutory duty before removal from office may be warranted. “[F]ailure, over a period of years, to perform a critical, official and mandatory duty for a clerk-treasurer falls squarely within the confines of Article VI Sections 7 and 8 of the Indiana Constitution and our legislature’s response via the Removal Statute.”