For the bystander rule for negligent infliction of emotional distress, explosion and subsequent fire are not separate injury-producing events for purposes of the temporal factor. Also, the plaintiff did not need to see the body of his wife being removed from the exploded house when he possessed a reasonable degree of certainty that she had been in the house at the time of the explosion.
M. Robb
Brown v. State, 20A-CR-2261, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 24, 2021).
Administrative punishment rendered by the Department of Correction does not preclude a subsequent criminal prosecution for the same conduct.
Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assoc. v. Finnerty, No. 20A-CT-1069, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 4, 2021).
Motion to certify interlocutory appeal was deemed denied when the trial court did not rule on it within thirty days of filing; the trial court could not revive the motion by belatedly granting it. Repetitive motion was a motion to reconsider and also was untimely.
Madden v. State, 20A-CR-196, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2021).
Convictions for Level 2 Kidnapping for Ransom and Level 5 Kidnapping, based on one removal, violate double jeopardy. In addition, convictions for both criminal confinement and kidnapping, both enhanced based on a demand for ransom, and are so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction,” violate double jeopardy.
Hackner v. State, 19A-CR-1577, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2021).
A dying victim’s non-verbal identification of the perpetrator, in response to an officer’s question, is a question credibility and not admissibility. The weight to be given identification evidence and any determination of whether it is satisfactory and trustworthy is a function of the trier of facts.