Forensic interviewer’s testimony vouching for child victims’ testimony, admitted over defendant’s timely objection, was reversible error. But detective calling children’s statements “powerful” when interrogating defendant was not error because it was meant only to elicit response from defendant, not as assertion of fact.
Appeals
R.B. v. State, No. 49A02-1502-JV-96, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 11, 2015).
Under the Fourth Amendment, police could reasonably rely on minor’s mother’s consent to search minor’s bedroom in her home.
Reef v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 49A05-1501-CC-3, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 11, 2015).
When a party failed to properly designate evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment, the trial court’s award of summary judgment was inappropriate.
Caldwell v. State, No. 22A01-1411-CR-479, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 31, 2015).
In prosecution for burglary and attempted rape, Defendant’s alleged “peeping” at another home in the same neighborhood 56 days later was inadmissible because it was not “strikingly similar” to the charged offense; but conclusive DNA evidence rendered the error harmless.
Alkhalidi v. Ind. Dept. of Correction, No. 77A01-1406-SC-278, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2015).
The failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be treated as procedural error, not a jurisdictional defect. Because exhaustion of remedies is not an element of plaintiff’s action, the exhaustion requirement is more appropriately considered an affirmative defense and it is the defendant’s burden to prove.