Where drunk driver injured plaintiff-pedestrian while driver was speaking on her cell phone with defendant (who was following driver in another car), trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint alleging that defendant gratuitously undertook a duty to protect plaintiff from the driver and that defendant was acting in concert with the driver.
Appeals
Buss v. Harris, No. 52A02-0911-CV-1088, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2010)
Where defendant was not determined to be a sexually violent predator at sentencing, the Department of Correction could not later make that determination. Thus, the trial court properly declined to require the defendant to register as a sexually violent predator for life.
Merchant v. State, No. 02A05-0910-CR-610, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 5, 2010)
Uncuffed driver with second officer five feet from driver’s side door while first officer was standing by the open driver’s door was “unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment” so that warrantless search of compartment was permissible under Arizona v. Gant.
Baugh v. State, No. 18A04-0911-CR-621 , __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 5, 2010)
Defendant’s argument that live testimony on sexually violent predator status was required by the SVP statute was waived by defendant’s failure at sentencing to object to its absence.
Brogan v. State, No. 57A04-0910-CR-592, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 6, 2010)
When sentence for sex offense was completely served, and original sentencing order did not require sex offender registration, and offender was imprisoned in another county for an unrelated offense when he filed his “motion” under sex offense cause number to be relieved of statute-imposed registration duty on ex post facto grounds, the sex offense court was not the appropriate forum for the registration challenge.