Ind. Code § 35-49-2-2(1)(matter or performance harmful to minors) does not require explicit depiction of the acts or condition, but it allows for the acts and/or condition to be described or represented in any form. A judge’s preliminary determination of obscenity, or that material is probably harmful to minors under Ind. Code § 35-49-2-4, is not evidence on which the parties can rely at trial or relay to the jury, and the jury should not be made aware of the trial court’s preliminary decision.
P. Mathias
Nick’s Packing Svcs., Inc. v. Chaney, No. 21A-SC-820, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2021).
Company who removed resident’s possessions during an eviction was a bailee of a mutual benefit bailment and had a duty to exercise ordinary care with resident’s possessions.
Niccum v. State, No. 21A-CR-1533, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 20, 2021).
The calculation of good time credit is a function of the defendant’s accrued time.
Washington v. State, No. 21A-CR-997, _ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 9, 2021).
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.
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.