Blood-draw search warrant application satisfied the filing requirement under Ind. Code § 35-33-5-2(a) because the signing judge’s uncontroverted certification that an affidavit had been delivered to her at the time of the warrant’s authorization established that the filing requirement had been satisfied.
M. Massa
Payne v. State, No. 20S-CR-313, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 18, 2020).
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.
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