Responding to the plaintiff’s demand was not the defendant’s only option to mitigate damages, but the trial court was within its discretion to reduce damages.
L. Rush
Berry v. State, No. 49S04-1406-CR-416, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 27, 2014).
“[W]hen a trial court accepts a plea agreement with an executed time cap, its discretion to impose further punitive conditions of probation does not extend beyond what the plea agreement specifies.”
Andrews v. Mor/Ryde International, Inc., No. 20S04-1406-PL-399, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 19, 2014).
Treble damages under the Sales Representative Act are not subject to the Punitive Damages Act.
Knapp v. State, No. 28S00-1305-LW-327,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 12, 2014).
Rejected defendant’s claims that crime scene photos and expert witness testimony were improperly admitted and that his sentence was not supported by evidence or was inappropriate in light of his character and the nature of his offense.
Ramirez v. State, No. 45S05-1305-CR-331, __ N.E.3d__ (Ind., Apr. 29, 2014).
Defendants are entitled to a rebuttable presumption of prejudice when they can show by a preponderance of the evidence that an unauthorized, extra-judicial contact or communication with jurors occurred, and that the contact or communication pertained to the matter before the jury.