The Indiana Legend Drug Act, Ind. Code § 16-42-19-20, is not unconstitutionally vague and it was possible for defendant nurse, as a non-physician, to know whether her actions were outside the usual course of professional medical practice.
C. Bradford
Weathers v. State, No. 49A04-1601-CR-3, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 17, 2016).
It is reasonable to require a law enforcement officer to follow established policies of completing a written inventory while conducting a warrantless search of a vehicle, but failure to do so will not result in suppression of items found in that search.
Beedy v. State, No. 48A02-1510-CR-1703, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., August 22, 2016).
Defendant is entitled to raise a “Romeo and Juliet” defense under Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(e) if he has not committed a prior sex offense against a person other than the victim.
Shelton v. Kroger LP I, No. 49A02-1601-CT-75, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 4, 2016).
Pharmacy that filled a prescription for a drug that caused a fatal interaction was not a qualified health care provider under the Medical Malpractice Act and so it was not exempted from the Comparative Fault Act.
Young v. State, No. 20A04-1512-CR-2142, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., July 26, 2016).
A general habitual offender enhancement and a specialized habitual offender enhancement should run concurrently.