When there is no conflict in expert opinion that a defendant is legally insane, the State must present other probative evidence from which to infer the defendant’s sanity.
M. Massa
Perkins v. Memorial Hospital of South Bend, No. 20S-CT-233, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 31, 2020).
Testimony compelled by a subpoena or other statutory duty is protected under the public policy exception to at-will employment.
Cavanaugh’s Sports Bar & Eatery, Ltd. v. Porterfield, No. 20S-CT-88, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 3, 2020).
Courts should determine if a landowner has a duty based on whether the defendant knew or had reason to know of any present and specific contemporaneous evidence that would cause a reasonable person to recognize the probability or likelihood of imminent harm.
Gibson v. State, No. 22S00-1601-PD-00009, 22S00-1608-PD-00411, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 24, 2019).
Gibson, who was sentenced to death, received the effective assistance of trial counsel
Cardosi v. State, No. 18S-LW-181, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., August 7, 2019).
Defendant’s conviction of murder and sentence to life in prison without parole upheld, finding that the evidence was sufficient, jurors were properly admonished, co-conspirator’s text messages were properly admitted, reading a withdrawn accomplice liability instruction was not improper, and court properly considered a non-statutory aggravator when imposing sentence.