When jurors told bailiff during trial that defendant or his family had intimidated them, it was fundamental error for trial court not to examine jurors to determine what they had been exposed to and whether they could remain impartial.
Appeals
In re Custody of J.V., No. 27A02-0903-JV-232, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 7, 2009)
Although evidence supports trial court’s determination that grandmother was de facto custodian, trial court was also required to make findings regarding its determination to award custody to grandmother.
Nicevski v. Nicevski, No. 02A04-0904-CV-188, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 8, 2009)
In a dissolution case, trial court erred by including in the marital estate the value of a residence titled in husbandâ’s parents’ name, because his parents were not joined as necessary nonparties pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 7(B).
King v. State, No. 49A04-0810-CR-609, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 30, 2009)
Internet service provider’s business record of defendant’s internet account activity was inadmissible under Ev. Rule 803(6) when there was no verification by provider of personal information filled in by the one who established the account, leading to a “lack of trustworthiness” under the Rule.
Dowell v. State, No. 32A01-0810-PC-508, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 30, 2009)
Applies “prison mailbox rule” to P-C.R. 1 proceedings.