The Indiana Ex Post Facto Clause was not violated by application of the 2006 sexually violent predator lifetime registration requirement to a person required to register as a sex offender for ten years under the law in effect when his sex offenses were committed.
T. Boehm
Tyler v. State, No. 69S04-0801-CR-3, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 31, 2009)
[A] party may not introduce testimony via the Protected Person Statute if the same person testifies in open court as to the same matters.
Gray v. State, No. 10S01-0808-CR-476, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 31, 2009)
Defendant’s behavior and statements at the two separate robberies were sufficient, without more, to prove that he had a “gun” in his pocket, but his apprehension immediately after the second robbery with only an electric shaver in his pocket precluded an “armed” enhancement for that robbery.
Jackson v. Scheible, No. 03S01-0807-CV-390, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 10, 2009)
Restatement of Torts 363 on liability of a land possessor for harm caused by trees can apply to a seller of the land if the seller retains possession or control of routine maintenance; in this case buyer had possession and seller was not liable.
Atterholt v. Herbst, No. 49S04-0806-CV-344, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 10, 2009)
“[W]hen a claimant seeks excess damages from the Patient’s Compensation Fund after obtaining a judgment or settlement from a health care provider in a medical malpractice case, the Fund may introduce evidence of the claimant’s preexisting risk of harm if it is relevant to establish the amount of damages, even if it is also relevant to liability issues that are foreclosed by the judgment or settlement.”