Even though father agreed to pay for daughter’s college education in the marital settlement agreement, daughter could repudiate their relationship and relieve father of his duty to pay.
P. Foley
Brook v. State, No. 22A-CR-2110, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2023).
When a defendant is charged with a crime elevated based upon a prior infraction, the trial court is not required to bifurcate the proceedings. Because Lorazepam’s status as a legend drug was not an issue of fact—it was identified in court by a name specifically designated as a controlled substance by the Indiana Code—the trial court did not erroneously invade the province of the jury by giving instructions that created a mandatory presumption indicating that the substance was classified as a legend drug.
Winans v. State, No. 23A-CR-80, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 26, 2023).
Where a defendant preserves their right to a jury trial, failure to object to a subsequently scheduled bench trial is insufficient to constitute waiver.
Garrett v. Nissan of Lafayette, LLC, No. 22A-CT-2583, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 11, 2023).
Trial court properly denied motion to deem requests for admission as admitted. The purpose of Trial Rule 36 is to allow parties to stipulate matters which are not seriously in dispute, such as the authenticity of an exhibit.
Priest v. State, No. 22A-MI-2845, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2023).
Statements automatically generated by a machine are not hearsay. State law conditions the admissibility of breath test results on the strict compliance with rigorous Department of Toxicology unless the test is administered to the driver of a commercial vehicle cited under Ind. Code § 9-24-6.1-6. While demonstrating compliance with the Code may not be strictly necessary, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the breath test administered was reliable.