Regarding the use of an interpreter, to address due process concerns in a civil action the court must administer an oath to the interpreter and establish that the interpreter is qualified just as it would in a criminal action.
Appeals
Tongate v. State, No. 29A02-1102-CR-223, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 16, 2011).
After magistrate had presided at trial, judge properly ruled on motion to correct error after reviewing tape recording of trial.
Stansberry v. State, No. 49A04-1102-CR-75, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2011).
When suspect charged the officer, it did not amount to the forcibly resisting, obstructing, or interfering with law enforcement required for a resisting law enforcement conviction.
Gilbert v. State, No. 49A04-1102-CR-77, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 26, 2011).
Undercover officer’s statement that he wanted sex from prostitution suspect were not hearsay and accordingly were not subject to Confrontation Clause protection, and defendant in any event had opportunity to confront second officer when he testified as to the first’s statement.
Fratter v. Rice, No. 53A04-1101-CT-1, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2011).
The court properly gave the Indiana Model Civil Jury Instruction for responsible cause because it “closely tracks our Supreme Court’s definition of proximate cause” and although it does not contain the word “omission,” the term “conduct” includes both acts and omissions.