Forfeiture order was reversed when the trial court inferred from defendant’s presence in the vehicle that he was a co-conspirator with the other passengers for dealing in narcotics when there was no additional evidence of a nexus between defendant’s forfeited money and dealing in narcotics.
Appeals
Phipps v. State, No. 28A05-1609-CR-2097, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 10, 2017).
To convict a person of violating a protective order, State must prove that communication with a third party was intended to be communicated to the protected party.
Perry v. State, No. 02A04-1608-CR-1890, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 11, 2017).
In order to convict a defendant for domestic violence when the victim recants, there must be substantive evidence based on more than the witnesses lack of credibility.
Oaks v. Chamberlain, No. 92A04-1609-CC-2041, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 11, 2017).
In a medical malpractice case, expert’s testimony about his personal practices is relevant and admissible for the purpose of impeaching his testimony about the standard of care.
Ison v. State, No. 24A04-1607-PC-1618, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 8, 2017).
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-9 does not contain a technical error as previously cited in a footnote to a prior opinion.