(1) Because State’s request to amend the charging information the day before trial was made under the amended version of Ind. Code § 35-34-1-5, Defendant’s failure to request a continuance to prepare his defense resulted in a waiver of the issue for appellate review; (2) although trial court should have redacted unrelated character evidence from Defendant’s BMV record, Defendant failed to prove that the admission of the evidence made a fair trial impossible.
C. Bradford
Droscha v. Shepherd, No. 52A02-1001-PL-26, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 3, 2010)
Indiana extends judicial and/or quasi-judicial immunity to arbitrators and their sponsors.
City of Indianapolis v. Duffitt, No. 49A04-0911-CV-661, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 29, 2010)
Because Defendant-City’s actions were discretionary functions, Plaintiff’s tort claim was barred under the Indiana Tort Claims Act.
L.W. v. State, No. 49A02-0909-JV-841, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 22, 2010)
Telephone tip describing a burglar from informant who identified himself when he called the police did not, in combination with all the other circumstances of the case, give the police the reasonable suspicion required for an investigatory stop.
Tolliver v. State, No. 45A03-0906-CR-250, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 18, 2010)
Allowing police officer to testify as an expert on “body language” bearing on credibility was error, but testimony officer actually gave was admissible lay opinion evidence about physical behavior indicating reluctance to cooperate.