Due process will not permit revocation of juvenile probation when the State has presented no evidence of the alleged probation violations.
Appeals
Elliott v. Rush Memorial Hosp., No. 70A01-0911-CV-553, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 11, 2010)
Where hospital employee forcibly catheterized plaintiff for a urine sample after an oral statement from the police that the sample was court ordered, plaintiff’s complaint adequately stated factual issues as to whether: (1) the sample was obtained pursuant to a written request, (2) the taking of the sample constituted reasonable force, and (3) forced catheterization constituted a “medically accepted manner” for obtaining a urine sample, all pursuant to Ind. Code § 9-30-6-6. Trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s medical malpractice complaint, however, because plaintiff was not a “patient” of the defendants.
Dept. of Correction v. Haley, No. 56A03-0911-CR-553, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 9, 2010)
In an action to contest DOC denial of educational credit time, the Attorney General, not the prosecutor, must represent the Department.
Ramirez v. State, No. 65A01-0911-CR-543, __ N.E.2d__ (Ind. Ct. App., May 28, 2010)
U.S. Supreme Court’s Melendez-Diaz holding does not require a change from prior Court of Appeals opinions that Dept. of Toxicology breathalyzer test certificate is not “testimonial” and hence is admissible without testimony from the tester.
Wiggins v. State, No. 45A03-0912-CR-613, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 24, 2010)
Prisoner’s ex post facto challenge to sex offender registration should be brought under new statutory procedure in IC 11-8-8-22.