Trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying and reducing spousal maintenance obligation based on changes in the parties’ respective finances, even when there was no improvement in the medical condition of the party receiving maintenance.
Appeals
Young v. State, No. 20A04-1112-CR-699, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 11, 2012).
When victim had come to the fire station on her own and was being treated by firemen, her statements in response to firefighters’ questions were not “testimonial” under the Crawford Confrontation Clause rule.
Gingerich v. State, No. 43A05-1101-CR-27, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 11, 2012).
Reverses twelve-year old’s conspiracy to commit murder conviction when counsel had only four days to prepare for waiver of juvenile jurisdiction hearing.
Teague v. State, No. 89A01-1202-CR-86, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 5, 2012).
Holds under the facts in this case that “a 911 recording that involves statements by a caller that were relayed from a victim [were] admissible where the victim had personal knowledge of the underlying incident but the caller did not,” on the basis that the caller’s frame of mind and lack of opportunity to reflect qualified her 911 statements as excited utterances.
Sisson v. State, No. 09A02-1102-CR-199, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 5, 2012).
Presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness was not shown when State refiled recidivist allegations for the retrial after the court had declared a mistrial because the jury could not reach a verdict.