Defendant’s conduct did not waive his right to counsel. His oral and written requests for the trial court to compel discovery were not obstreperous, and trial court had neither adequately advised defendant of the dangers of self-representation nor made necessary findings on whether his conduct under the circumstances constituted knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.
Sampson v. State, No. 87S01-1410-CR-684, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., July 30, 2015).
Bar on “vouching” testimony under Evid. R. 704(b) and Hoglund v. State (Ind. 2012) also bars opinion testimony of whether a witness shows “signs or indicators” of having been “coached,” unless defendant opens the door by an express or implied claim of coaching. (Overruling Kindred v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) and Archer v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).)
Sistrunk v. State, No. 49S05-1410-CR-654, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. July 30, 2015).
Double jeopardy did not preclude convictions for robbery and criminal confinement.
Wellpoint, Inc. v Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., No. 49S05-1404-PL-244, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 29, 2015).
When the defendant moves for summary judgment and the plaintiff is the non-moving party, the defendant has no duty to raise all its affirmative defenses.
In Re Visitation of L-A.D.W., No. 82S01-1507-DR-452, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 30, 2015).
“Given the uniqueness that pervades different family units, strict standards on the amount of permissible visitation under the Grandparent Visitation Act would be difficult to craft. As such, trial courts should be able to consider the various circumstances presented in each individual case to determine what is in the child’s best interest.”