Live-in child caretaker had no more authority over the child than a babysitter, was not acting in loco parentis, and consequently could not invoke the parental discipline privilege in prosecution for battery on the child.
Sibbing v. Cave, No. 49A02-0802-CV-165, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 5, 2009)
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit defendant’s expert’s testimony that challenged the specific course of treatment chosen by plaintiff’s medical care providers to treat the injuries caused by defendant’s negligence.
Ashworth v. State, No. 49A02-0805-CR-448, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 20, 2009)
Discusses whether detective’s opinion whether two other individuals had any “involvement” in charged crime could admissible under Evidence Rule 701 if based on “perceptions” of other officers, and notes federal opinion it could not, but does not decide as any error was harmless.
Gilliam v. State, No. 71A03-0808-CR-420, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 24, 2009)
Failure to support children in three separate households was not a single episode of criminal conduct for purposes of consecutive sentencing.
George v. State, No. 73A05-0808-CR-503, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 24, 2009)
Having a pharmacist determine the chemical composition of pills properly seized in an inventory search did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Art. 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.