“[T]he three-step test for the discoverability of information outlined in State v. Cline (In re WTHR-TV) . . . is not reached when information is protected by an unqualified privilege unless a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights would be violated by enforcing the privilege.” Here, defendant had no Due Process or Sixth Amendment right to avoid the statutory victim advocate privilege, which prevented discovery of the records of a nongovernmental counseling agency.
Supreme
Crawford v. State, No. 49S05-1106-CR-370, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2011)
“[T]he three-step test for the discoverability of information outlined in State v. Cline (In re WTHR-TV)” applies here to non-privileged video taken by a private entity.
J.M. v. M.A., No. 20S04-1012-CV-676, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2011)
Because the statutes are “explicit that in order for a court to rescind a paternity affidavit, paternity testing must exclude the man as the biological father,” “[t]he parties’ words or agreement amongst the parties cannot supplant the statutory requirements.”
D.M. v. State, No. 49S02-1101-JV-11, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind., June 22, 2011)
Procedures for waiver of juvenile’s rights were adequately followed, but “JUVENILE WAIVER” form used by police is criticized.
Curtis v. State, No. 49S02-1010-CR-620, __ N.E.2d __ (June 14, 2011)
“We hold that pending criminal charges do not violate a defendant’s right to due process if (1) the trial court has not involuntarily committed the defendant and (2) the trial court has not made an appropriate finding that the defendant will never be restored to competency. We also hold that . . . the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C).”