Under Indiana Evidence Rule 613(b), extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement may be admitted before or after a witness is given “opportunity to explain or deny” the statement as the Rule requires, but confronting the witness first remains the “preferred method.”
Supreme
Stafford v. Szymanowski, No. 89S01-1502-CT-64, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 2, 2015).
The patient’s designated expert medical testimony created a genuine issue of material fact regarding doctor’s negligence.
Kramer v. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Inc., No. 71S03-1506-CT-350, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 3, 2015).
Because the applicable Indiana statute does not impose the requirement of a pre-placement registry check, and because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that adoption agency had any duties in excess of its statutory obligations, summary judgment for the adoption agency was properly granted.
Young v. State, No. 49S02-1505-CR-275, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 14, 2015).
“[U]nder the unusual operative and procedural facts of this case—the actual shooter remaining unidentified, the resulting ambiguity as to whether these Defendants intended to carry out a shooting, the State’s choice to rely on the shooting alone in the charging instruments and at trial, and the trial court’s unambiguous finding of reasonable doubt on that particular theory—we hold Defendants lacked fair notice of the [murder by beating] charge of which they were ultimately convicted, which under these circumstances establishes fundamental error.”
Hines v. State, No. 52Sj05-1408-Cr-563, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 19, 2015).
“Continuous crime” doctrine applies only to situations where a defendant has been charged multiple times with the same offense.