When defendant is charged with committing the offense in a drug-free zone, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that children were reasonably expected to be present when the offense occurred.
N. Vaidik
Estate of Pfafman v. Lancaster, No. 57A03-1603-CC-516, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App, Jan. 18, 2016).
The Comparative Fault Act does not require that a jury allocate some fault to every actor who proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury, but permits the allocation of any percentage or no percentage of fault to a party or nonparty who caused or contributed to cause the injury.
Waters v. State, No. 06A05-1604-CR-863, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 12, 2016).
Trial court should impose a narrower internet restriction that is more in line defendant’s crime rather than a complete internet ban.
Sheetz v. Sheetz, No. 01A05-1601-DR-80, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2016).
Husband is equitably estopped from rebutting the presumption that he is child’s biological father because he told his wife that he would raise the child as his own, prohibited her from telling the child’s biological father that she was pregnant and also instructed her not to seek support from the biological father or to file a paternity action.
Williams v. State, 82A04-1602-CR-295, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 10, 2016).
State did not properly authenticate evidence to establish a chain of custody for blood sample that tested positive for meth.