Because of the highly deferential standard of review afforded to trial courts in family law matters and in contempt matters, although the evidence might have supported motion for custody modification, such modification was not required.
Supreme
Blaize v. State, No. 26S00-1410-LW-771, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., March 1, 2016).
Trial judge’s comments to jury, though perhaps ill-advised, did not vouch for the credibility of the State’s cell-phone tower evidence and undermine Defendant’s alibi defense.
Jackson v. State, No. 48S02-1509-CR-554, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Mar. 2, 2016).
Under Indiana RICO offense, “continuity” is relevant to proving that the incidents of criminal conduct were “not isolated”; but unlike federal RICO, “continuity” is not itself a discrete element of the offense.
McElfresh v. State, No. 32S01-1511-CR-667, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., March 3, 2016).
Even true statements may be coercive enough to influence a witness and will therefore support conviction for obstruction of justice if they were intended for that purpose.
Myers v. Crouse-Hinds Division of Cooper Industries, Inc., No. 49S00-1502-MI-119, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 2, 2016).
The Indiana Product of Liability Act statute of repose does not apply in cases where there is prolonged exposure to inherently dangerous foreign substances like asbestos.