“We hold today that when a defendant charged with murder or treason seeks bail, the burden is on the State, if it seeks to deny bail, to show—by a preponderance of the evidence—that the proof is evident or the presumption strong.”
M. Massa
City of Indianapolis v. Buschman, No. 49S02-1201-CT-598, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 4, 2013).
When a claimant includes information in a tort claim notice beyond that required by the Indiana Tort Claims Act, that information does not restrict the scope of the claim.
VanPatten v. State, No. 02S03-1205-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2013).
The Evidence Rule 803(4) hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment was not shown to apply, because there was insufficient evidence the six year-old understood the need to provide the forensic nurse with truthful information about the suspected molestation.
Dye v. State, No. 20S04-1201-CR-5, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 21, 2013).
“[T]he State is not . . . permitted to support [an] habitual offender finding with a conviction that arose out of the same res gestae that was the source of the conviction used to prove [defendant] was a serious violent felon.”
Jennings v. State, No. 53S01-1209-CR-526, __N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 20, 2013).
“[T]he combined term of imprisonment and probation for a misdemeanor may not exceed one year,” so “[w]e therefore remand this case to the trial court for imposition of a probationary period consistent with this opinion, not to exceed 335 days—the difference between one year (365 days) and the 30 days Jennings was ordered to serve in prison.”