Trial court properly denied the State’s motion to amend the habitual offender charging information because it would prejudice defendant’s substantial rights and because it was not supported by good cause.
Appeals
Martin v. State, No. 19A-CR-183, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 11, 2019).
Defendant was improperly sentenced for a crime – Level 3 Felony robbery – for which he had not been convicted because the State did not allege the use of a deadly weapon as an enhancement of the robbery offense, and the jury was never instructed on that crime.
Battering v. State, No. 18A-CR-2309, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 11, 2019).
The defendant was not entitled to discharge under Criminal Rule 4(C) as trial-court proceedings were “stayed” when the trial court authorized an interlocutory appeal by the State and vacated the upcoming trial date, but did not actually use the word “stay.”
Henry v. Community Healthcare System Community Hospital, No. 19A-CT-1256, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 8, 2019).
Medical providers owe a common law duty of confidentiality to their patients, so a breach of that duty is possible.
Zelman v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., No. 19A-CC-989, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 8, 2019).
Affidavit of Debt did not lay a proper foundation to authenticate the Customer Agreement or credit card statements as business records admissible under Evidence Rule 803(6)’s hearsay exception; bank failed to designate admissible evidence establishing that defendant had opened a credit card account with the bank and that defendant owed the bank the amount alleged in the compliant.