“[D]efendant’s acknowledgement he is on probation, without more,” does not “’open the door’ to extensive and potentially-damaging character evidence about the nature of his prior offenses or the length of his prior sentences.”
Appeals
Neukam v. State, No. 16A01-1002-CR-50, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2010)
Single photo show-up to witness who had already named and identified suspect was not unduly suggestive.
State v. Renzulli, No. 32A04-1003-CR-194, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 4, 2010)
One of three separate opinions in plurality decision would hold State had to corroborate citizen tip with testimony that officers saw no other vehicles besides defendant’s which matched the tipster’s description.
Capital Drywall Supply, Inc. v. Jai Jagdish, Inc., No. 71A03-1004-PL-189, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 29, 2010)
“[A] mechanic’s lien claimant does not have a right to rely on telephone hearsay to identify the property owner and does so at its own risk.”
SPC Group, L.L.C. v. Dolson, Inc., No. 19A01-0912-CV-604, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 4, 2010)
Mortgage granted by Holland as surety for a note was unenforceable when the mortgage provided incorrectly that Thompson was a co-maker of the note, when in fact Thompson was only a guarantor on the note.