Unlike the labels on regulated pharmaceuticals, or warnings on products containing dangerous ingredients, nothing in the writing or symbols of cannabis-based products provide a detailed analysis of the products’ chemical compositions, their directions for use, or specific warnings from their misuse. Therefore, the market reports exception to the hearsay rule (Evidence Rule 803(17)) does not appeal to the writing or symbols on a cannabis-based package.
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.