Undercover officer’s statement that he wanted sex from prostitution suspect were not hearsay and accordingly were not subject to Confrontation Clause protection, and defendant in any event had opportunity to confront second officer when he testified as to the first’s statement.
J. Baker
Fratter v. Rice, No. 53A04-1101-CT-1, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2011).
The court properly gave the Indiana Model Civil Jury Instruction for responsible cause because it “closely tracks our Supreme Court’s definition of proximate cause” and although it does not contain the word “omission,” the term “conduct” includes both acts and omissions.
Villagrana v. State, No. 08A05-1101-CR-21, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 24, 2011).
“Indiana does not criminally penalize those who negligently neglect a dependent.”
Kornelik v. Mittal Steel USA, Inc., et al., No. 45A03-1011-CT-58, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2011).
An injured employee who settles with a third party for substantially less than the damages value of his claim without the consent of his employer or his worker’s compensation carrier can subsequently reduce his lien arising under the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act by attorney fees and pro rata costs pursuant to Indiana Code section 22-3-2-13; however, the injured employee cannot reduce the lien in the same proportion that his full recovery was reduced pursuant to Ind. Code 34-51-2-19.
Lock v. State, No. 35A04-1010-CR-641, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 26, 2011).
Evidence defendant’s motorcycle was going 43 miles per hour did not prove its “maximum design speed” was 25 miles per hour or more, a “design speed” the State had to prove in order to show defendant was operating a “motor vehicle” rather than a “motorized bicycle” so that defendant was guilty of driving while suspended.