Acts of domestic battery were sufficiently compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action so as to constitute a single transaction for purposes of the continuous crime doctrine.
Appeals
Sullivan v. State, 16A01-1512-CR-2175, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., July 8, 2016).
Trial court abused its discretion in finding that defendant’s violation warranted revoking his community corrections placement and in ordering him to serve eighteen months in jail.
Green v. Robertson, No. 49A02-1509-MI-1487__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 5, 2016).
“Where recovery is limited to damages for increased risk of harm because the patient stood less than a 50% chance of recovery prior to encountering the physician’s negligence, the trial court may consider evidence of the patient’s underlying risk in order to determine the appropriate amount of damages.”
Jimerson v. State, No. 52A02-1510-CR-1538, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2016).
“Where a jury is able to apply concepts without further assistance, highlighting individual exchanges or vouching for the truth or falsity of particular evidence is invasive.”
Hurley v. State, No. 49A05-1601-CR-108, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 30, 2016).
Defendant’s inability to give a sufficient sample on a chemical breath test after being suspected of driving under the influence was a refusal to take the test.