“Where recovery is limited to damages for increased risk of harm because the patient stood less than a 50% chance of recovery prior to encountering the physician’s negligence, the trial court may consider evidence of the patient’s underlying risk in order to determine the appropriate amount of damages.”
Jimerson v. State, No. 52A02-1510-CR-1538, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2016).
“Where a jury is able to apply concepts without further assistance, highlighting individual exchanges or vouching for the truth or falsity of particular evidence is invasive.”
Clippinger v. State, No. 71S00-1501-LW-950 , __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 28, 2016).
The legislature intended a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole to fit within the definition of a “term of imprisonment” and when imposing such a sentence the trial court must make certain specific findings.
Hurley v. State, No. 49A05-1601-CR-108, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 30, 2016).
Defendant’s inability to give a sufficient sample on a chemical breath test after being suspected of driving under the influence was a refusal to take the test.
Staggs v. Buxbaum, No. 47A04-1510-PL-1758, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 28, 2016).
Crime Victim Relief Act (CVRA) damages are distinct from common law punitive damages; court properly awarded CVRA damages after making an “assessment of criminality.”