In this case, improper communication between bailiff and foreperson was fundamental error.
Moryl v. Ransone, No. 46A04-1112-CT-710, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 9, 2013).
A proposed medical malpractice complaint is not considered filed when a copy of the proposed complaint is delivered to a third-party carrier.
VanPatten v. State, No. 02S03-1205-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2013).
The Evidence Rule 803(4) hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment was not shown to apply, because there was insufficient evidence the six year-old understood the need to provide the forensic nurse with truthful information about the suspected molestation.
Steen v. State, No. 49A02-1211-CR-877, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2013).
Printing of store’s name “H & M” on security tags and store labels was not hearsay under Evidence Rule 801(c) because it was “not capable of being true or not true.”
Lovold v. Ellis, No. 54A01-1209-DR-410, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 26, 2013).
Living expenses for a child living on campus should not be included in the child support order when the child has repudiated the parent and the parent is not required to contribute to the child’s post-secondary education.