Applies prior holding that the “attenuation doctrine” of Fourth Amendment law does not apply under the Indiana Constitution; majority opinion concludes that the Fourth Amendment inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply under the Indiana Constitution, but concurring panel members conclude instead that inevitable discovery could apply under the Indiana Constitution but that the State failed to show an inevitable discovery.
T.P. Orthodontics, Inc. v. Kesling, No. 46S03-1405-MI-337, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 3, 2014).
To balance the interests in accessing the special litigation committee’s report in a derivative suit, the Court remanded for “(1) TPO to specifically identify privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work product contained within the SLC report; (2) the trial court to review in camera the revised redacted SLC report and privilege designations to determine whether the designated material is in fact privileged; (3) the trial court to then order the release of the revised SLC report not protected by privilege to the sibling shareholders; and (4) the trial court to issue a protective order preventing any party from disclosing the report’s (unredacted) contents.”
State v. Schulze, No. 73A01-1311-CR-471, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2014).
Officer who offers a chemical test to a suspected intoxicated driver is not required to be certified to administer the test.
Withers v. State, No. 48A02-1403-CR-130, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2016).
In hearing to terminate drug court placement, trial court properly took judicial notice of notes of attendance reports in Drug Court file under Evidence Rule 201(b)(5), authorizing judicial notice of “records of a court of this state.”
Carpenter v. State, No. 02A05-1309-CR-467, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2014).
As an issue of first impression, this case holds that the hearsay rule does not prohibit admission of mail exhibits to demonstrate the defendant’s name and address were on mail found in a specific location.