Small claims court abused its discretion when it denied plaintiff the opportunity to present evidence refuting defendant’s counterclaim after defendant presented his evidence.
P. Riley
Smith v. Wrigley, No. 33A05-0903-CV-156, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 25, 2009)
Because inmate’s claims were neither legally nor factually frivolous, trial court erred in dismissing his complaint under the Frivolous Claim Law.
McMurrar v. State, No. 49A02-0809-CR-868, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 12, 2009)
Admission of drug test results on testimony of sponsoring witness, the lab’s quality assurance manager, without testimony of the lab scientist who performed the test or a showing of the latter’s unavailability, violated defendant’s confrontation rights.
Salter v. State, No. 49A02-0808-CR-672, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 19, 2005)
Downloading an image to a computer is not “creating a digitized image” under the child exploitation offense; the dissemination of matter harmful to minors offense was unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant’s sending an image of his genitals to a sixteen year old with whom he could legally have consensual sexual relations.
Beldon v. State, No. 43A05-0805-CR-302, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 21, 2009)
Fact that physician had a busy schedule, without a showing that she could not have rearranged the schedule or that she was subpoenaed, did not make her “unavailable” such that her videotaped deposition could be admitted without violating the Confrontation Clause.