A mistrial is an extreme remedy that is warranted only when no other curative action can be expected to remedy the situation.
Appeals
McConnell v. Doan, No. 23A-CT-145, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 2023).
The trial court properly appointed a special master pursuant to Indiana Commercial Court Rule 5 and T.R. 70 to take the necessary steps to satisfy a party’s contractual obligations.
Budimir v. State, No. 23A-CR-17, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 23, 2023).
It is a violation of Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution for an officer who subsequently arrives on scene to detain, and search an individual, without any additional evidence of suspicion, after that individual was released by an officer who was previously on scene.
Kirby v. State, No. 22A-CR-2971, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 17, 2023).
While the silent witness theory’s foundation requirements are applicable when a video is admitted into evidence, the requirements also applicable when: (1) witnesses testified regarding the substance of a video; (2) the video recorded events that the witnesses themselves did not observe first-hand; and (3) the video was not offered into evidence.
Turner v. State, No. 22A-CR-2404, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 8, 2023).
An evidentiary harpoon occurs when the State deliberately places inadmissible evidence before the jury to prejudice the jurors against the defendant. Where an evidentiary harpoon has been introduced at trial, the reviewing court requires a high level of assurance that the irregularity did not affect the verdict before it will affirm the judgment. It is not enough that the verdict is supported by sufficient evidence; the reviewing court must be able to say with certainty that the improper testimony did not influence the verdict.