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.
Baker v. Taylor, No. 18S04-1002-CV-118, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 9, 2010)
Holder of a power of attorney who uses the power to create joint survivor accounts acts as a fiduciary whose right in the accounts is presumed invalid. Mere filing with the court of a deposition of a person incompetent under the Dead Man Statute does not waive the Statute’s prohibition of the deposition’s use as evidence.
Girdler v. State, No. 73A01-1001-CR-14, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2010)
Concludes, contrary to other Court of Appeals cases, that a defendant may be convicted of auto theft even if he was not the original thief; also concludes the rule of “exclusive possession of stolen property since the time of the original theft only applies where direct evidence of a defendant’s knowledge of the property’s stolen character is lacking and such knowledge must be proven circumstantially.”