Evidence of drug involvement, and whether the suspect and officer are in a confined space, are both part of the totality of the circumstances contributing to an officer’s reasonable belief that a subject is armed and dangerous as to permit a Terry frisk.
G. Slaughter
K.C.G. v. State, No. 20S-JV-263, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 16, 2020).
Juvenile Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction when it adjudicated juvenile as a delinquent child for dangerously possessing a firearm, an act that would not be an offense if committed by an adult.
Glover v. Allstate Property & Casualty Ins. Co., No. 20S-CT-23, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 8, 2020).
Decedent was covered by insurance policy as a “resident relative” because she lived with her parents, and her parents did not need to notify insurance company of her status because she was not an “operator” living within their household. Additionally, the insurance policy’s anti-stacking provision did not limit an insured’s ability to recover under multiple UIM policies and that the policy’s offset provision reduces only the payments made on behalf of those persons directly liable for the injury.
Humphrey v. Tuck, No. 20S-CT-548, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 8, 2020).
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the failure-to-mitigate instruction; only a scintilla of evidence is necessary to support the giving of the instruction.
Clark v. Mattar, No. 20S-CT-109, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 9, 2020).
When juror stated he did not want to serve as a juror, had a favorable impression of doctors, and stated repeatedly that he could not and would not be able to assess non-economic damages, he should have been struck for cause; a new trial is appropriate.