“[A] person’s unfitness to operate a vehicle . . . is to be determined by considering his capability as a whole, not component by component, such that impairment of any of the three abilities necessary for the safe operation of a vehicle equals impairment within the meaning of I.C. § 9-30-5-2.”
Appeals
Owens v. State, No. 29A02-1002-CR-390, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2010)
Policeman’s testimony that defendant had not called him, after the officer left his card on defendant’s door with a note asking defendant to call, did not violate defendant’s Fifth Amendment right.
Cox v. State, No. 79A04-0912-CR-741, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2010)
When child took the stand and testified he knew the difference between telling the truth and a lie and was subject to cross-examination but otherwise provided no testimony about the alleged molesting, and when there had been no testimony from mental health experts that testifying in court would traumatize the child, it was reversible error to admit videotape of child’s statement to a prosecutor’s interviewer about the alleged crimes.
Lacy-McKinney v. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp., No. 71A03-0912-CV-587, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 19, 2010)
“HUD [mortgage] servicing responsibilities . . . are binding conditions precedent that must be complied with before a mortgagee has the right to foreclose on a HUD property.”
Lombardi v. Vandeusen, No. 10A01-0910-CV-491, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 22, 2010)
Trial court erroneously concluded jurisdiction to modify support was not properly with Illinois court under UIFSA; ex parte pre-hearing conference, from which pro se obligee was excluded despite request to attend, at which evidence was discussed and documents were exchanged violated due process and results in opinion’s directing that case be assigned to a different judicial officer on remand.