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.”
Ennik v. State, No. 90A02-1409-CR-664, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. July 17, 2015).
Defendant was not entitled to severance of right when alleged molestations were based on a common modus operandi and not just of similar character.