“Source of physical evidence” exception to Evidence Rule 412 (rape shield) does not apply when State presents no physical evidence for Defendant to rebut. Excluding evidence did not prevent defendant from describing his version of events and cross-examining witnesses accordingly. Bailiff’s communication with jury was clearly improper, but harmless. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the jury heard no extraneous information, based on weighing conflicting accounts of events in deliberations.
Whitely v. State, No. 49A02-1501-CR-50, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2015).
Inventory search of vehicle was not unreasonable despite officers’ significant deviation from written department policy for such searches; breach of policy, without more, did not show that the inventory was pretext for an investigatory search.
Schmidt v. Ind. Insurance Co., No. 22S01-1507-PL-412, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 2, 2015).
Even if the applicant was truthful and provided complete information regarding the property to the insurance agent, there is no genuine issue of fact regarding the proximate cause of loss because no dwelling fire insurance policy would have been issued on such information.
Wartell v. Lee, No. 02A03-1503-PL-81, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 7, 2015).
An allegedly defamatory statement related to a person’s trade, profession, office, or occupation is not defamatory per se, but the statement must impute a serious level of misconduct in a way that does not require reference to extrinsic facts for context.
Lewis v. State, No. 49A02-1504-CR-193, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2015).
Fleeing from police by auto, then by foot, was one continuous act of fleeing and therefore, under federal double jeopardy principles, could support only one conviction for resisting law enforcement.