Police eavesdropping on attorney-client conference was reprehensible and presumptively prejudicial, but under the circumstances did not necessarily warrant suppression of all testimony from officers who invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege about the eavesdropping. Presumption of prejudice was rebuttable if State could prove beyond reasonable doubt that each witness’s anticipated testimony was untainted by the misconduct and do so without implicating witnesses’ Fifth Amendment privilege.
L. Rush
Jackson v. State, No. 48S02-1509-CR-554, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Mar. 2, 2016).
Under Indiana RICO offense, “continuity” is relevant to proving that the incidents of criminal conduct were “not isolated”; but unlike federal RICO, “continuity” is not itself a discrete element of the offense.
Myers v. Crouse-Hinds Division of Cooper Industries, Inc., No. 49S00-1502-MI-119, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 2, 2016).
The Indiana Product of Liability Act statute of repose does not apply in cases where there is prolonged exposure to inherently dangerous foreign substances like asbestos.
Wilford v. State, No. 49S02-1602-CR-110, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Feb. 26, 2016).
Officer’s conclusory testimony failed to establish how his decision to impound a car conformed to an established departmental impound policy; impoundment and subsequent inventory search were therefore invalid.
Ward v. State, No. 49S02-1602-CR-96, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Feb. 19, 2016).
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.