“Among other things, we hold that, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case, a lapse of at least ‘a few minutes’ between a declarant’s perception of an event and his statement describing that event was too long to qualify the statement as a present sense impression under Indiana Evidence Rule 803(1).”
Appeals
Preferred Professional Ins. Co., v. West, No. 49A02-1403-CT-163, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 16, 2014).
The Medical Malpractice Act was not intended to cover claims by third parties having absolutely no relationship to the doctor or medical provider.
Orange v. Morris, No. 45A03-1310-PL-414, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2014).
City court judge properly filed a complaint in mandamus in Circuit Court instead of issuing a mandate order under T.R. 60.5.
Adcock v. State, No. 47A01-1407-PC-283, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 8, 2014).
Appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise insufficiency of the evidence for defendant’s sex crime convictions.
Williams v. State, No. 34A02-1406-CR-418, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 9, 2014).
When auto’s tail light had a hole in it such that the white light from the hole was “overwhelming,” as long as there was some red light plainly visible at 500 feet there was no violation of the tail lamp statute and the stop predicated on a tail lamp violation was illegal.