(1) Because State’s request to amend the charging information the day before trial was made under the amended version of Ind. Code § 35-34-1-5, Defendant’s failure to request a continuance to prepare his defense resulted in a waiver of the issue for appellate review; (2) although trial court should have redacted unrelated character evidence from Defendant’s BMV record, Defendant failed to prove that the admission of the evidence made a fair trial impossible.
D.H. v. State, No. 49A05-1002-JV-92, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 11, 2010)
Student who threw a punch at another student but instead hit his teacher committed the equivalent of battery against his teacher under the doctrine of transferred intent.
Droscha v. Shepherd, No. 52A02-1001-PL-26, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 3, 2010)
Indiana extends judicial and/or quasi-judicial immunity to arbitrators and their sponsors.
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. McNeil, No. 02A03-1001-MI-90, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 5, 2010)
Trial court erred when it interpreted Ind. Code § 34-11-2-4(3) to impose a statute of limitations on the BMV’s ability to impose an administrative suspension.
City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, No. 49A02-1002-CT-95, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2010)
(1) City waived its challenge based on the magistrate’s lack of authority to grant Plaintiff’s motion to correct error by failing to object until after time for ruling on the motion expired; (2) waiver notwithstanding, trial court properly used a nunc pro tunc order to grant Plaintiff’s motion, because the CCS provides a sufficient written memorial indicating the trial court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation within the required time.