Evidence the protected person or another layperson told the defendant there was a protective order against him does not suffice to prove the protective order knowledge element in the invasion of privacy offense.
M. May
Nunley v. State, No. 31A01-0902-CR-88, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 16, 2009)
Child’s statement did not have sufficient indicia of reliability to be admissible under the protected persons statute.
Koenig v. State, No. 42A04-0903-CR-146, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2009)
Defendant’s trial objection on hearsay and foundational grounds sufficed to preserve the Confrontation Clause argument he wished to raise on appeal.
Miller v. State, No. 09A02-0812-CR-1133, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2009)
Reverses for “demonstrative” use of video in final argument, when video was not in evidence and would have probably been inadmissible, was prejudicial, and pertained only to an undisputed issue.
Baker v. Taylor, No. 18A04-0812-CV-746, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2009)
Where an account is established by an attorney-in-fact using entirely the funds of a principal, the attorney-in-fact is named joint owner or POD beneficiary, and the principal has no direct involvement in, or even awareness of, the creation of the account, the survivor cannot be presumed the owner of the accounts.