Trial court did not have the proof necessary to impose a special condition on an involuntary commitment to outpatient therapy when there was no reasonable relationship between the special condition and respondent’s treatment and safety or that of the general public.
Hochstetler v. State, No. 22A-CR-02154, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 31, 2023).
Under the intimidation statute, actual malice is based on the mindset of the defendant when the defamatory words are communicated, not their intention while contemplating the defamatory act. Inherent in actual malice is the necessity for speech to be disseminated rather than merely threatened. Moreover, criminal conduct is not protected by the church-autonomy doctrine even if carried out using communications about church doctrine or policy.
Hoosier Contractors, LLC v. Gardner, No. 22S-CT-381, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 19, 2023).
A party must establish standing at each stage of litigation. It is not enough for a claimant to establish injury in its pleadings; it must do so at each successive stage of the litigation.
Priest v. State, No. 22A-MI-2845, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2023).
Statements automatically generated by a machine are not hearsay. State law conditions the admissibility of breath test results on the strict compliance with rigorous Department of Toxicology unless the test is administered to the driver of a commercial vehicle cited under Ind. Code § 9-24-6.1-6. While demonstrating compliance with the Code may not be strictly necessary, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the breath test administered was reliable.
H&S Financial, Inc. v. Parnell, No. 23A-SC-154, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2023).
The holder of an equitable lien may not conduct proceedings supplemental unless it has proved that it is “a plaintiff owning the described judgment against the defendant,” T.R. 69(E), to conduct proceedings.