In a coverage dispute regarding occurrence polices, the time of the damage, and not the time of the alleged negligent conduct that caused the damage, is the triggering event for coverage. Further, coverage under both policies were triggered under the circumstances of this case and damages are to be apportioned pursuant to the language of the insurance policies.
M. May
Saffold v. State, No. 49A05-1003-CR-180, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 17, 2010)
Under both the 4th Amendment and the Indiana Constitution, officer safety permitted a second pat-down search of motorist stopped for traffic infraction after officer reasonably suspected motorist might be armed, had him exit the vehicle, and found ammunition on his person in the initial pat-down and more ammunition in the vehicle.
Deloney v. State, No. 22A01-0906-CR-273, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 17, 2010)
DNA evidence is not sufficiently relevant to be admissible when the defendant “could not be excluded from a possibly infinite number of people matching the crime-scene DNA and the DNA expert cannot offer a statistical probability whether the crime scene DNA came from the defendant.”
Jones v. State, No. 32A04-1004-CR-309, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2010)
Reverses order for $1322.60 jury fee, as statute authorizes no more than $2 as a jury fee. Remands for ability to pay determination as required by statute for order requiring payment of $4527 appointed counsel fee and $164 docket fee.
Konopasek v. State, No. 25A03-1003-CR-155, __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2010)
“[D]efendant’s acknowledgement he is on probation, without more,” does not “’open the door’ to extensive and potentially-damaging character evidence about the nature of his prior offenses or the length of his prior sentences.”