Published by the Indiana Judicial Center
In this case, improper communication between bailiff and foreperson was fundamental error.
The Evidence Rule 803(4) hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment was not shown to apply, because there was insufficient evidence the six year-old understood the need to provide the forensic nurse with truthful information about the suspected molestation.
Printing of store’s name “H & M” on security tags and store labels was not hearsay under Evidence Rule 801(c) because it was “not capable of being true or not true.”
When authorities have taken an inmate’s clothing for inventory and safekeeping while he awaits trial, the Indiana Constitution requires that they must obtain a warrant to test the clothing regarding an unrelated, uncharged crime.
The State may obtain a conviction of Class A conspiracy to commit robbery with proof that the conspirators intended to cause serious bodily injury in committing the robbery.
Jane Seigel, Executive Director
Michael J. McMahon, Director of Research
Amanda Wishin, Staff Attorney
30 South Meridian Street, Suite 900
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Case Clips are selected decisions of the Indiana appellate courts abstracted for judges by the Indiana Judicial Center. The full text of Indiana opinions may be retrieved from the Indiana Judicial System website at courts.IN.gov/opinions.
The Judicial Center is the staff agency for the Judicial Conference of Indiana and serves Indiana judges and court personnel by providing educational programs, publications, and research assistance.
All content © 2013 Indiana Judicial Center courts.IN.gov