Domestic battery victim’s statements to forensic nurse identifying her attacker were not barred as testimonial hearsay because they were given for “primary purpose” of medical treatment, which includes “safety plan” for discharge.
L. Rush
In re: Indiana State Fair Litigation, No. 49S02-1601-CT-51, ___ N.E.3d ___, (Ind. Jan. 28, 2016).
Indemnity language on back of vendor’s invoice could not be applied retroactively to liabilities predating the invoice; retroactive effect was not “clearly and unequivocally” expressed in invoice language, and could not be inferred from parties’ course of dealing.
Gertiser v. Stokes, No. 29S02-1511-DR-643, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 10, 2015).
Revoking spousal maintenance requires proof “not merely that the maintenance award had become unreasonably excessive, but its very existence had become unreasonable.”
Lee v. State, No. 49S02-1511-CR-638, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Nov. 5, 2015).
Charging information for conspiracy to commit murder by shooting the victim did not give defendant fair notice of lesser-included battery offenses based on beating the victim.
Williams v. State, No. 48S05-1507-CR-424, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Oct. 26, 2015).
Officer’s testimony that “there’s zero doubt in my mind that this was a transaction for cocaine” was an opinion on the ultimate issue of guilt in violation of Ind. Evidence Rule 704(b), but was harmless error.