Insurance Company was the sole defendant, and neither Evidence Rule 411 nor the common law permits the substitution of a non-party to conceal its identity as an insurer.
Bingley v. Bingley, No. 02A03-0904-CV-187, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2009)
Husband’s employer-paid post-retirement health insurance premiums were not a marital asset subject to division, because they were purely supplemental, meaning that they were not obtained using marital assets, and were non-elective and not subject to divestiture, division, or transfer.
Garcia-Torres v. State, No. 64A03-0812-CR-630, __ N.E.2d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2009)
DNA cheek swab may be taken without a warrant based on reasonable suspicion; Pirtle counsel right for a valid consent to search by a person in custody does not apply to consenting to taking of a cheek swab.
Clark v. State, No. 43S00-0810-CR-575, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Oct. 15, 2009)
Defendant’s statements about himself on his “My Space” website as an “outlaw” were properly admitted to rebut his testimony at trial.
Damron v. State, No. 49F18-8909-PC-109913, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 19, 2009)
Record is not “silent” for purposes of Boykin rights waiver advisement because guilty plea hearing recording was destroyed; here, P-C.R. petitioner presented no evidence he was not advised of Boykin rights, so “presumption of regularity” that advice was given applied.