Video reenactment may be taken with consent and questions during such reenactment due not amount to custodial interrogation where the officer’s inquiry is merely general on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime or other general questioning of citizens in the fact-finding process.
E. Tavitas
Harris v. State, No. 19A-CR-1863, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 13, 2020).
Pursuant to Indiana Rule of Evidence 615(c), the parent of a juvenile waived to adult court is a person whose presence a party shows to be essential to presenting the party’s claim or defense.
Batchelder v. Ind. University Health Care Assoc., No. 19A-CT-2569, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 14, 2020).
When there are joint tortfeasors in a medical malpractice action, the trial court should not prematurely set off a settlement to the statutory limit without first determining the value of case.
F.A. v. State, No. 19A-JV-2438, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 1, 2020).
A juvenile may not be required to pay the costs of their secure detention. Moreover, before imposing costs of secure detention upon a parent, a court must inquire into the parent’s ability to pay; if the parent has the ability to pay, the trial court shall follow the applicable requirements related to the Child Support Rules and Guidelines.
Atkins v. State, No. 19A-CR-951, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 3, 2020).
Implied adverse consequences and orders to sit down uttered by law enforcement to a suspect, coupled with other factors, may constitute “custody” for purposes of triggering Pirtle and/or Miranda advisements.