The “valid prescription” requirement is intended to assure the prescription was not obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit and thus, an expired prescription is still a “valid prescription” under Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(a).
Appeals
State v. Riggs, 20A-CR-2144, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2021).
Any substantive provisions of the Child Deposition Statute, Ind. Code § 35-40-5-11.5, do not exempt the procedural provisions of the Statute from the general rule that the Indiana Trial Rules supersede conflicting procedural statutes. The procedural provisions of the Child Deposition Statute conflict with the trial rules, and therefore the procedural provisions are unenforceable.
Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. Dial, No. 20A-CT-2382, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2021).
A proposed complaint before the IDOI is not void ab initio because it was filed in the name of a deceased individual as administrator of the estate of a deceased alleged victim of malpractice.
A.S. v. Ind. Dept. of Child Services., No. 20A-JT-1525,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2021).
A successor judge who did not hear the evidence can still certify the recreated record created pursuant to Ind. App. Rule 31.
State v. Neukam, 20A-CR-2006, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2021).
The Indiana General Assembly has not yet provided the statutory authority to grant subject matter jurisdiction to an adult criminal court in the situation where the adult criminal court is aware that an individual is alleged to have committed a delinquent act of child molesting when he was under eighteen (a child) but is twenty-one or older at the time the State seeks to file charges against him.