Temperly v. State (Ind. Ct. App., Kirsch, J.)-Evidence that defendant’s BAC was .244 and that he had been involved without fault in a fatal accident did not, without more, prove he endangered another person so as to be guilty of Class A misdemeanor OWI.
Trotter v. State, No. 29A02-0910-CR-974, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 10, 2010)
Fourth Amendment “attenuation of taint” doctrine has no application under the Indiana Constitution; in any event, doctrine would not apply to these facts.
Wilkerson v. State, No. 26A01-0909-CR-457, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 14, 2010)
Officers could permissibly stop a vehicle with windows so tinted the driver cannot be easily identified. A Pirtle warning is not required for pat-down searches for weapons.
Hatter v. Pierce Mfg., Inc., No. 49A02-0907-CV-659, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 7, 2010)
Failure to use the last peremptory against either of the two jurors a party complained should have been dismissed for cause required the party to show the failure to dismiss both of the jurors was erroneous, when court had made the entire venire available for challenges for cause before requiring peremptories to be exercised.
Wolverine Mutual Insurance Co. v. Oliver, No. 20A03-1003-SC-162, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 9, 2010)
Given that Small Claims Rule 4(A) provides that the statute of limitations is “deemed at issue” and that the trial court asked if there was a limitations question at a point when plaintiff could still have litigated it, the court properly decided the case based on the statute of limitations even though defendant had not raised or argued it.