The trial court properly vacated a paternity order issued under a fraudulent pretext.
Appeals
Bunch v. State, No. 16A05-1007-PC-439, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 21, 2012).
Expert “fire victim toxicology analysis” testimony, developed as scientifically reliable after defendant’s arson felony murder trial, constituted newly discovered evidence and warranted a new trial.
Garrett v. State, No. 32A05-1105-CR-239, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 7, 2012).
When defendant passenger testified that the driver was the dealer of the methamphetamine in a make-up bag next to her purse and that he threatened to hurt her and her children if she did not say the meth belonged to her, there was a “serious evidentiary dispute” as to whether defendant had intent to deal the meth, as charged, and it was reversible error not to instruct on the lesser included of possession of methamphetamine.
Hensley v. State, No. 63A01-1105-CR-195, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 8, 2012).
Search of probationer’s home was not truly conducted for probation reasons, and was an impermissible investigative search by police unsupported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Key v. Hamilton, No. 48A02-1007-CT-81, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2012).
“[A] signaling driver may owe a duty of care to a third party motorist as a matter of law when his actions result in the reasonable reliance by the signaled driver that traffic is clear.”