When protective order notice was left at subject’s home but the return of service did not indicate that notice was also mailed to last address as required by Trial Rule 4.1, subject’s statement to police and admission at trial that he received the notice in combination with evidence of T.R. 4.1 notice attempt were sufficient to support his invasion of privacy conviction.
Supreme
State v. Tharp, No. 49S02-1005-CR-256, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 16, 2011)
Actual notice of a protective order sufficient for a conviction of invasion of privacy need not come from an agent of the state, but in this case conviction is reversed because the only evidence defendant knew of the protective order was testimony the protected person told him about it and at the same time said the order was no longer valid.
Romo v. State, No. 49S04-1009-CR-499, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 9, 2011)
“[W]ritten English translations of foreign language recordings may be admitted as substantive evidence and . . . the recordings themselves generally should be admitted and played as well.”
Green v. Ford Motor Co., No. 94S00-1007-CQ-348, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Feb. 8, 2011)
In a crashworthiness case alleging enhanced injuries under the Indiana Products Liability Act, the finder of fact shall apportion fault to the person suffering physical harm when that alleged fault is a responsible cause of the harm for which damages are being sought.
Galloway v. State, No. 33S01-1004-CR-163, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Dec. 22, 2010)
Reverses bench trial rejection of insanity defense because, despite “nonconflicting expert and lay opinion that defendant . . .was insane, the trial court rejected the insanity defense after concluding that the defendant could continue to be a danger to society because of an inadequate State mental health system.”