Seventeen-year-old petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because of trial counsel’s failure to present evidence of defendant’s age and juvenile brain development.
Chapman v. State, No. 21A-CR-421, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 23, 2022).
Ind. Code § 35-49-2-2(1)(matter or performance harmful to minors) does not require explicit depiction of the acts or condition, but it allows for the acts and/or condition to be described or represented in any form. A judge’s preliminary determination of obscenity, or that material is probably harmful to minors under Ind. Code § 35-49-2-4, is not evidence on which the parties can rely at trial or relay to the jury, and the jury should not be made aware of the trial court’s preliminary decision.
Arrendale v. American Imaging & MRI, LLC, No. 21S-CT-370, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 24, 2022).
Non-hospital medical entities that provide patients with health care may be held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of an independent contractor through apparent or ostensible agency.
Wilson v. Anonymous Defendant 1, No. 21S-CT-371, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 24, 2022).
A medical provider may be held liable for the acts of an apparent agent based on the provider’s manifestations of an agency relationship with the apparent agent, which causes a third party to rely on such a relationship.
Partee v. State, No. 21A-CR-1529, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 17, 2022).
When a defendant is removed from the courtroom for disruptive behavior, a trial court is not required to advise the defendant that he may return to the courtroom if he promises to behave.