Erroneous accomplice-liability instruction for attempted murder was harmless surplusage; State relied on ample evidence of Defendant’s liability as a principal and of his specific intent to kill, and did not seriously pursue accomplice liability as a distinct basis for conviction.
Mauch v. State, No. 06A01-1501-CR-16, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 10, 2015).
Trial court abused its discretion in revoking defendant’s probation for failure to pay his restitution in full; defendant was elderly, unemployed, and in poor health, and was unable to obtain a reverse mortgage on his marital home because his wife refused to consent, but faithfully made monthly payments from his social-security income.
State v. Taylor, No. 46A04-1407-CR-316, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 10, 2015).
Trial court erred in ordering blanket suppression of all testimony from police officers who invoked their Fifth Amendment rights in connection with eavesdropping on defendant’s discussions with counsel. Officers’ misconduct was egregious, but blanket exclusion was too extreme and Court of Appeals was not willing to presume prejudice to defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. Instead, trial court would need to make individualized determinations of prejudice at trial in light of each witness’s testimony on direct examination.
Gruber v. YMCA of Greater Indianapolis, No. 49A02-1410-CT-713, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 5, 2015).
The general rule that owners of domestic animals are liable only if the owner knows or has reason to know that the animal has dangerous propensities applies to all domestic animals – even pigs.
State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Earl, No. 36S05-1408-CT-562, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 9, 2015).
Declines to adopt a bright line rule on the admissibility of insurance coverage, but admission of the coverage limit contained within the insurance policy was relevant background information that would help the jury understand the relationship between the parties and the basis for the lawsuit itself in this case.