Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting officer’s lay-witness testimony that an allegedly mentally ill defendant was “evasive” during police questioning.
Supreme
Smith v. State, ___ N.E.3d ___, No. 71S04-1506-CD-364 (Ind. June 26, 2015).
State did not violate Due Process by knowingly relying on perjured testimony, nor was testimony “incredibly dubious”; co-defendant’s trial testimony was not necessarily false nor internally contradictory, but merely inconsistent with factual basis for her guilty plea in prior proceedings.
Russell v. State, No. 84S01-1409-CR-583, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. June 29, 2015).
Plea agreement was enforceable despite its misstatement that the defendant’s consecutive sentences were capped by statute. Defendant was entitled to the benefit of his plea; sentence was mistakenly capped, but not necessarily illegal.
Miller v. Danz, No. 49S05-1506-PL-400, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2015).
“Where Trial Rule 15(C) addresses the relation back of amendments ‘changing the party against whom a claim is asserted,’ it requires that the party to be brought in by amendment ‘knew or should have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him.’ T.R. 15(C) (emphasis added). In contrast, Trial Rule 17(C) applies where ‘the name or existence of a person is unknown.’ T.R. 17(F).”
Celebration Worship Center, Inc. v. Tucker, No. 22S01-1506-PL-401, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2015).
Homeowners met criteria for adverse possession of disputed property.