Because the dealing in a synthetic drug offense prohibits dealing in a synthetic substance “in any pure or adulterated form,” a single charge of dealing in the synthetic substance JWH-122 should have been used rather than separate dealing charges for each brand name of “spice” product containing the synthetic substance JWH-122.
Appeals
Mack v. State, No. 39A-01-1401-CR-6, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2014).
“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).”
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.