Defined “improvement to real property” as used in Indiana Code 32-30-1-5 as “(1) an addition to or betterment of real property; (2) that is permanent; (3) that enhances the real property’s capital value; (4) that involves the expenditure of labor or money; (5) that is designed to make the property more useful or valuable; and (6) that is not an ordinary repair.”
City of Indianapolis v. Buschman, No. 49A02-1108-CT-782, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 26, 2012).
When a claimant’s tort claim notice contains a specific and definitive assessment of loss, recovery is limited to the loss described in the original notice, and if additional losses are discovered after the notice has been submitted then the claimant should amend the original notice or submit another notice in a timely manner.
Williams v. Illinois, No. 10-8505, __ U.S. __ (June 18, 2012).
Plurality opinion on whether Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce an analyst’s forensic report through an expert witness; plurality holds in this case Clause did not preclude an expert’s testimony that defendant’s DNA profile matched a vaginal swab semen DNA profile produced by a Cellmark analyst who did not testify.
Orr v. State, No. 45A03-1107-CR-308, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 18, 2012).
Evidence Rule 613(b) confers discretion to allow a prior inconsistent statement to be admitted before the witness has a chance to explain or deny or, in some circumstances, even when witness is not given any chance to explain or deny.
Whiting v. State, No. 38S05-1206-CR-345, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 19, 2012).
Procedural default loss of a juror-bias claim when the defendant fails to exhaust her peremptory challenges is not amenable to fundamental-error review.