The objective component of self-defense, as adopted by our courts, is analyzed from the standpoint of an ordinary “reasonable person.” The question being presented to the fact-finder is whether an ordinary reasonable person would have responded with deadly force if confronted with the same circumstances that defendant confronted.
Trial court acted within its discretion to consider defendants’ motion for summary judgment after the deadline set in the case management order. The local rule on case management orders should be read in harmony with the Trial Rules.
After trial court granted spouse’s spousal support for Medicaid purposes, trial court properly allowed Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA) to intervene; FSSA was entitled to relief from judgment because the facts did not support spousal maintenance.
Diagnostic testimony from a medical professional based on information acquired from other professionals is inadmissible hearsay; however, the same testimony may be admissible under Evidence Rule 703, which provides: “An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. Experts may testify to opinions based on inadmissible evidence, provided that it is of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.”
For an alleged violation of Brady v. Maryland to be meritorious, the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because the evidence is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; the evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.