“Source of physical evidence” exception to Evidence Rule 412 (rape shield) does not apply when State presents no physical evidence for Defendant to rebut. Excluding evidence did not prevent defendant from describing his version of events and cross-examining witnesses accordingly. Bailiff’s communication with jury was clearly improper, but harmless. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the jury heard no extraneous information, based on weighing conflicting accounts of events in deliberations.
J. Baker
Causey v. State, No. 49A02-1503-CR-185, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2015).
Telling police officers, “If you come any closer I’ll shoot,” was conditional and aimed at officers’ future, not past, conduct; it therefore did not threaten retaliation for their prior lawful act of responding to a domestic-disturbance report, and could not support intimidation conviction.
Herron v. State, No. 49A04-1504-CR-149, ___ N.E.3d ___(Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 14, 2015).
Warrant for drawing intoxicated driver’s blood was invalid for lack of probable cause, where officer’s probable-cause affidavit marked an “X” next to certain boilerplate language, but wrote nothing in the corresponding blanks to provide specific facts to make an individualized showing as to defendant.
Stibbens v. Foster, No. 18A02-1410-PL-750, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 14, 2015).
A “devisee” for will contests includes only devisees of the will being challenged and devisees of the next will in line who would directly benefit if the challenged will were set aside. To award attorney’s fees in a will contest, “First, the claimant seeking fees must prove that some or all of her claims were made in good faith and with just cause. The trial court must then make a preliminary determination as to which of the claims meet this standard. Then, the claimant is required to come forward with evidence showing the amount of attorney fees expended only for the claims that meet the statutory standard.”
In re D.B., No. 49A02-1501-JC-48, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 2, 2015).
Child’s absent, out-of-state father should be presumed to be a fit and capable parent unless the state proves otherwise.