Plaintiff had a liberty interest in not being mistakenly labeled as a sex offender and the process to challenge such erroneous listing was inadequate, however, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether a DOC employee personally deprived plaintiff of a constitutional right.
Appeals
Santelli v. Rahmatullah, No. 49A04-1011-CT-70, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 29, 2012).
Adopts adopt Restatement (Third) of Torts § 14, “Tortfeasor Liable For Failure To Protect The Plaintiff From The Specific Risk Of An Intentional Tort.”
In re Paternity of S.C., No. 30A01-1107-JP-322, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 29, 2012).
The trial court properly vacated a paternity order issued under a fraudulent pretext.
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.