An evidentiary harpoon occurs when the State deliberately places inadmissible evidence before the jury to prejudice the jurors against the defendant. Where an evidentiary harpoon has been introduced at trial, the reviewing court requires a high level of assurance that the irregularity did not affect the verdict before it will affirm the judgment. It is not enough that the verdict is supported by sufficient evidence; the reviewing court must be able to say with certainty that the improper testimony did not influence the verdict.
R. Altice
Rubendall v. Community Hospital of Anderson & Madison Cnty., No. 22A-CT-2223, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 1, 2023).
Damages for “loss of privacy,” resulting in “embarrassment, stress, and anxiety” must satisfy the requirements for emotional distress damages. Defendant broadcasting private health information via short-wave radio airwaves does not meet the publication element for public disclosure of private facts.
Edna Martin Christian Center, Inc. v. Smith, No. 22A-CT-1420, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2023).
A personal representative of an estate may not assert a claim for emotional distress damages for the benefit of the decedent’s minor dependent children and nondependent adult children in a wrongful death action.
Passarelli v. State, No. 22A-CR-1116, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 9, 2023).
The objective component of self-defense, as adopted by our courts, is analyzed from the standpoint of an ordinary “reasonable person.” The question being presented to the fact-finder is whether an ordinary reasonable person would have responded with deadly force if confronted with the same circumstances that defendant confronted.
Teising v. State, No. 22A-CR-548, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 15, 2022).
The residency statutes illustrate that a person does not change residency by the mere fact of being physically present in another location; rather, the person must have intent to reside in the new location.