Diagnostic testimony from a medical professional based on information acquired from other professionals is inadmissible hearsay; however, the same testimony may be admissible under Evidence Rule 703, which provides: “An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. Experts may testify to opinions based on inadmissible evidence, provided that it is of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.”
R. Pyle
State v. Parchman, No. 21A-CR-447, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2022).
For an alleged violation of Brady v. Maryland to be meritorious, the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because the evidence is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; the evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.
LaMotte v. LaMotte, No. 21A-DR-2608, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 30, 2022).
Parties’ due process rights were violated when a successor judge made factual findings and legal conclusions without a trial de novo following the departure of the original judge who conducted the evidentiary hearing.
Yergy’s State Road BBQ, LLC v. Wells Co. Health Dept., No. 21A-PL-2593, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 19, 2022).
Trial court properly dismissed as moot a complaint regarding the Governor’s face mask requirement during COVID-19 because the executive order was no longer in place.
Warren v. State, No. 21A-CR-247, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2022).
A trial court may conduct a sentencing hearing at which the defendant appears by video, but only after obtaining a written waiver of his right to be present and the consent of the prosecution.