Trial court did not err in denying appellate counsel for mother in TPR proceedings; even if mother had requested appellate counsel, she failed to make any effort for the purpose of an appeal and was unlikely to prevail on the merits.
Bishop v. Housing Auth. of South Bend, No. 71A03-0906-CV-273, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 1, 2010)
Tenant had right to jury trial on the ultimate outcome of ejectment proceedings, but not on the prejudgment immediate possession hearing.
State ex rel. Crain Heating Air Cond. & Refrig., Inc. v. Clark Circuit Court, No. 10S00-0910-OR-500, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Feb. 17, 2010)
If a ruling involves the granting, modifying, or dissolving of a temporary or preliminary injunction and has not been entered within ten days after the hearing thereon, there has been a delay in ruling and an interested party may immediately praecipe for withdrawal under the procedure provided in Trial Rule 53.1(E); it is not necessary for a party to await the thirty-day period described in Trial Rule 53.1(A) before filing a praecipe for withdrawal.
Palacios v. State, No. 29A02-0908-CR-750, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 26, 2010)
Daughter’s translation of her mother’s statements to investigating officer were admissible under the present sense impression hearsay exception.
Skinner v. State, No. 55A01-0811-CR-543, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 28, 2010)
Former defense counsel, who had withdrawn when another client, defendant’s jailmate, became a state’s witness, could not be compelled to disclose what he had learned from the prospective witness through the attorney-client relationship, particularly when there were adequate alternative sources of impeachment available to defendant.