There is no “class-of-one” defense to criminal charges.
Appeals
Jones v. State, No. 49A02-1406-CR-383, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 30, 2014).
D felony assisting a criminal does not require State to prove defendant knew the level or type of felony the assisted person committed.
Rodriguez v U.S. Steel Corp., No. 45A04-1407-CT-350, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 31, 2014).
Company did not have a duty to the plaintiff when its employee fell asleep driving after his shift, crashing his car into the plaintiff.
Elvers v. State, No. 34A02-1404-CR-239, __ N.E. 3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 17, 2014).
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.
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).”