Beeler v. State, No. 49A05-1007-CR-456, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 27, 2011)

The transcript contained no admissions by the probationer of the alleged probation violation, and without such admissions the revocation without a hearing would be fundamental error, but as there was a notation in the CCS that an admission was made and this notation was presumptively true, the probationer failed to demonstrate fundamental error.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Love v. Rehfus, No. 30S01-1004-CV-162, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., April 21, 2011)

A firefighter’s private email supporting a political candidate running for township trustee to a small group of citizens was protected public-employee speech under the Garcetti-Connick-Pickering test, and the fire chief was not justified in treating the firefighter differently from any other member of the general public and terminating his position.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Boston v. State, No. 32A01-1008-CR-421, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 13, 2011)

2010 amendment of statute on required methods for blood draws to test for intoxication is remedial, so the amendment, as an evidence rule, applied to the method used to draw Boston’s blood in his OWI prosecution, when the amendment was enacted after the blood test but took effect prior to the trial.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Raisor v. Carter, No. 49A05-1010-CT-629, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., April 8, 2011)

If TR 15(C)’s requirements are met within the statute of limitations, then the last date to file an amended complaint would be 120 days after the statute of limitations has expired.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

D.G. v. State, No. 49A04-1006-JV-416, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 13, 2011)

Since there was no recording of the sidebar conference at which defense counsel assertedly objected to alleged molesting victim’s competence to testify, and the parties could not agree as to what was said in the conference, defense counsel was assumed to have made the objection, and the failure of the trial court or of prosecuting counsel to then question the witness and assess her competence required reversal of the delinquency finding.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion