When a claimant includes information in a tort claim notice beyond that required by the Indiana Tort Claims Act, that information does not restrict the scope of the claim.
Supreme
VanPatten v. State, No. 02S03-1205-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2013).
The Evidence Rule 803(4) hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment was not shown to apply, because there was insufficient evidence the six year-old understood the need to provide the forensic nurse with truthful information about the suspected molestation.
Meredith v. Pence, No. 49S00-1203-PL-172,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., March 26, 2013).
“[T]he Indiana school voucher program, the Choice Scholarship Program, is within the legislature’s power under Article 8, Section 1, and that the enacted program does not violate either Section 4 or Section 6 of Article 1 of the Indiana Constitution.
Crider v. State, No. 91S05-1206-CR-306, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 21, 2013).
Defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal could not prevent his challenging on appeal the trial court’s erroneous imposition of consecutive habitual offender enhancements not agreed to in the bargain.
Dye v. State, No. 20S04-1201-CR-5, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 21, 2013).
“[T]he State is not . . . permitted to support [an] habitual offender finding with a conviction that arose out of the same res gestae that was the source of the conviction used to prove [defendant] was a serious violent felon.”