Admission of course-of-investigation evidence was error.
Elvers v. State, No. 34A02-1404-CR-239, __ N.E. 3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 17, 2014).
Because the dealing in a synthetic drug offense prohibits dealing in a synthetic substance “in any pure or adulterated form,” a single charge of dealing in the synthetic substance JWH-122 should have been used rather than separate dealing charges for each brand name of “spice” product containing the synthetic substance JWH-122.
Mack v. State, No. 39A-01-1401-CR-6, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2014).
“Among other things, we hold that, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case, a lapse of at least ‘a few minutes’ between a declarant’s perception of an event and his statement describing that event was too long to qualify the statement as a present sense impression under Indiana Evidence Rule 803(1).”
Rolley v. Rolley, No. 87S01-1412-DR-739, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 16, 2014).
Under Ind. Code § 31-16-8-1, an agreed child support order can be modified based on either a substantial and continuing change in circumstances or, after twelve months, a twenty percent deviation.
Preferred Professional Ins. Co., v. West, No. 49A02-1403-CT-163, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 16, 2014).
The Medical Malpractice Act was not intended to cover claims by third parties having absolutely no relationship to the doctor or medical provider.