Deliberating jury should have been provided with a computer or some other method to view CD exhibits containing high-resolution digital images of plaintiff’s pre-surgery retina; failure of court to provide a viewing method or to give tendered instruction that jury could ask to view the CD images in open court was reversible error.
P. Mathias
Hizer v. Holt, No. 71A03-1002-PL-127, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 27, 2010)
Home seller may be held liable for fraudulent misrepresentations made on the IC 32-21-5-7 Sales Disclosure Form if the buyer can prove the seller’s actual knowledge of the defect at the time the form is completed.
Neukam v. State, No. 16A01-1002-CR-50, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2010)
Single photo show-up to witness who had already named and identified suspect was not unduly suggestive.
State v. Renzulli, No. 32A04-1003-CR-194, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 4, 2010)
One of three separate opinions in plurality decision would hold State had to corroborate citizen tip with testimony that officers saw no other vehicles besides defendant’s which matched the tipster’s description.
Lewis v. State, No. 49A02-0908-CR-736, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 27, 2010)
Plurality opinion holds that officer’s incursions into auto passenger compartment, after driver had been arrested outside the vehicle, violated 4th Amendment and Indiana Constitution Art. I Sec. 11.