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.”
Appeals
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.
Clark v. Mattar, No. 19A-CT-380, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 4, 2019).
Trial court abused its discretion in denying for-cause challenge to juror who indicated that he would be unable to sit on a jury asked to determine damages for non-economic loss, which plaintiff was seeking.
Straw v. State, No. 19A-CR-934, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2019).
Person convicted of voyeurism did not have to register as a sex offender because legislature did not include that offense in its list of crimes requiring registration.