Diagnostic testimony from a medical professional based on information acquired from other professionals is inadmissible hearsay; however, the same testimony may be admissible under Evidence Rule 703, which provides: “An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. Experts may testify to opinions based on inadmissible evidence, provided that it is of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.”
State v. Parchman, No. 21A-CR-447, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2022).
For an alleged violation of Brady v. Maryland to be meritorious, the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because the evidence is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; the evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.
Austin v. State, No. 22A-CR-1240, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 28, 2022).
Proof of the slightest penetration of the sex organ is sufficient to demonstrate a person performed other sexual misconduct with a child.
Morgan v. Dickelman Ins. Agency, Inc., No. 22A-PL-892, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 30, 2022).
Summary judgment was appropriate for plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligence, and fraud against their insurance agency because plaintiffs did not review their easy-to-read, unambiguous insurance renewal certificates.
Young v. State, No. 22S-CR-306, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 13, 2022).
Evidence of guilt reviewed on appeal need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to pass muster. It is sufficient that a reasonable jury could have inferred that the defendant committed the crimes charged; the weighing of all the evidence and resolution of conflicts is left to the jury