“[A] laboratory technician involved in the chain of custody of DNA evidence” need not “testify at trial in order to satisfy the demands of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.”
R. Rucker
Halliburton v. State, No. 20S00-1206-LW-560, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Dec. 19, 2013).
Limiting instruction erroneously advised the jury that the court had ruled the evidence to be relevant and admissible because the probative value outweighed any prejudice, but the error was not fundamental.
Kitchell v. Franklin, No. 09S00-1307-PL-476, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Nov. 13, 2013).
Indiana’s Public-Private Agreements statute does not require a local legislative body to first adopt the statute before it may issue a request for proposals or begin contract negotiations as provided for under the statute.
In re Dixon, No. 71S00-1104-DI-196, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Oct. 8, 2013).
Adopts an objective standard for determining when a statement made by an attorney about a judicial officer violates Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.2(a), “A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge . . . .”
McWhorter v. State, No. 33S01-1301-PC-7, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 12, 2013).
Adheres to Indiana position that verdicts are not reviewable for being “inconsistent, contradictory, or irreconcilable,” and holds that collateral estoppel does not prevent defendant acquitted of murder from being retried for manslaughter in this case.