The jury in a habitual offender proceeding must be allowed to make the ultimate legal determination of whether the defendant has the status of habitual offender. Only evidence of the defendant’s alleged convictions is relevant to that determination. A defendant has no constitutional right to present irrelevant evidence.
L. Rush
Miller v. Patel, No. 22S-CT-371, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2023).
Convictions entered after a guilty plea have the same preclusive effect in subsequent litigation as those entered after jury or court verdicts.
Hayko v. State, No. 23S-CR-13, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 22, 2023).
To lay a proper foundation for the admission of opinion testimony under Evidence Rule 608(a), the proponent must establish that the witness’s opinion is both rationally based on their personal knowledge and would be helpful to the trier of fact.
S.D. v. G.D., No. 23S-PO-89, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 26, 2023).
Protective order petitioner has a burden of showing that “domestic or family violence has occurred” and that respondent “represents a credible threat to the safety” of the petitioner or petitioner’s child. Trial courts need only determine whether the petitioner has made the requisite showings by a preponderance of the evidence.
US Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Erie Ins. Exchange, No. 22S-CT-264, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 6, 2023).
The absence of contractual privity between the contractor and other commercial tenants precludes them from recovery because the contractor’s allegedly negligent work posed a risk to only property and the commercial tenants suffered only property damage.