“Defense” to within-1,000-feet-of-park drug crime enhancement that defendant was “briefly” in the zone and no person under 18 was present is a mitigating factor like “sudden heat” which State must rebut if evidence puts it in issue.
Appeals
Young v. State, No. 06A01-0808-CR-395, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2009)
Affirms condition not to drive during entire eight year probation period, even though it was six years more than the maximum statutory license suspension.
McReynolds v. State, No. 82A01-0809-CR-432, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 4, 2009)
Live-in child caretaker had no more authority over the child than a babysitter, was not acting in loco parentis, and consequently could not invoke the parental discipline privilege in prosecution for battery on the child.
Sibbing v. Cave, No. 49A02-0802-CV-165, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 5, 2009)
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit defendant’s expert’s testimony that challenged the specific course of treatment chosen by plaintiff’s medical care providers to treat the injuries caused by defendant’s negligence.
Ashworth v. State, No. 49A02-0805-CR-448, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 20, 2009)
Discusses whether detective’s opinion whether two other individuals had any “involvement” in charged crime could admissible under Evidence Rule 701 if based on “perceptions” of other officers, and notes federal opinion it could not, but does not decide as any error was harmless.