The market reports exception to hearsay under Evidence Rule 803(17) does not apply to allow the admission of evidence from Drugs.com that was used to identify pills for possession charges.
P. Mathias
Stott v. State, 20A-CR-1924, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2021).
To establish admissibility based on the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, witnesses’ statements to police officers in a recording must demonstrate, among other things, contemporaneity between the events perceived and the declarations about those events. Moreover, it is the proponent’s burden to establish the strong showing of authenticity and competency for the admissibility of photographs used as substantive evidence under the silent-witness theory.
Lake Co. Bd. Of Commissioners v. State, No. 20A-MI-1527, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 30, 2021).
County is responsible for paying the costs of its probation officers’ legal defense that are incurred in the performance of the officers’ duties.
Bunnell v. State, 20A-CR-981, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2020).
When probable cause for a search warrant is premised solely on law enforcement’s detection of the odor of raw marijuana, the assertion must be based on more than personal belief: the affiant–officer must provide some information about the detecting officers’ relevant “training” or “experience” that led to the ultimate conclusion.
Spencer v. State, No. 20A-MI-636, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 3, 2020).
To be a sexually violent predator as defined by Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-7.5, a defendant must have committed a crime that is substantially equivalent to the offenses listed in subsections (A) through (J) of the statute, and for child molesting “as a…Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, or Level 4 felony (for a crime committed after June 30, 2014)[.]”