Under the intimidation statute, actual malice is based on the mindset of the defendant when the defamatory words are communicated, not their intention while contemplating the defamatory act. Inherent in actual malice is the necessity for speech to be disseminated rather than merely threatened. Moreover, criminal conduct is not protected by the church-autonomy doctrine even if carried out using communications about church doctrine or policy.
Appeals
Priest v. State, No. 22A-MI-2845, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2023).
Statements automatically generated by a machine are not hearsay. State law conditions the admissibility of breath test results on the strict compliance with rigorous Department of Toxicology unless the test is administered to the driver of a commercial vehicle cited under Ind. Code § 9-24-6.1-6. While demonstrating compliance with the Code may not be strictly necessary, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the breath test administered was reliable.
H&S Financial, Inc. v. Parnell, No. 23A-SC-154, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2023).
The holder of an equitable lien may not conduct proceedings supplemental unless it has proved that it is “a plaintiff owning the described judgment against the defendant,” T.R. 69(E), to conduct proceedings.
Hinton v. State, No. 23A-CR-107, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 21, 2023).
The plain-view exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement allows an officer to seize an object without a warrant if (1) the officer is lawfully in a position from which to view the object, (2) the incriminating character of the object is immediately apparent, and (3) the officer has a lawful right of access to the object.
AgReliant Genetics, LLC v. Gary Hamstra Farms, Inc., No. 22A-CC-1827, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 12, 2023).
Trial court properly considered the prior course of dealing between the parties in determining whether the plaintiffs established the elements of promissory estoppel.