Reverses for “demonstrative” use of video in final argument, when video was not in evidence and would have probably been inadmissible, was prejudicial, and pertained only to an undisputed issue.
Appeals
Neff v. State, No. 29A02-0904-CR-332, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2009)
Venue for child solicitation crime was in county in which the electronic solicitations occurred, not the county where defendant and “child” were to meet; reversal for improper venue is not an acquittal, so defendant may be retried in county of proper venue.
Lovitt v. State, No. 73A05-0904-CR-229, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov., 2009)
Driver’s possession of marijuana in his pocket did not make his vehicle a common nuisance.
Brown-Day v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 49A02-0903-CV-277, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2009)
Insurance Company was the sole defendant, and neither Evidence Rule 411 nor the common law permits the substitution of a non-party to conceal its identity as an insurer.
Bingley v. Bingley, No. 02A03-0904-CV-187, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2009)
Husband’s employer-paid post-retirement health insurance premiums were not a marital asset subject to division, because they were purely supplemental, meaning that they were not obtained using marital assets, and were non-elective and not subject to divestiture, division, or transfer.