C. B. v. State, No. 49A04-1207-JV-379, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 21, 2013).

Juvenile court must independently determine probable cause for a violation of a “conditional admission agreement,” and must afford the juvenile an opportunity to challenge the probable cause.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Piatek v. Beale, No. 49A04-1209-CT-448, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 20, 2013).

A reference made during a trial to “pleading the Fifth” is not an admission of a crime and alone is not grounds for a mistrial.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Sowers v. State, No. 08A02-1208-CR-640, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 16, 2013)

In this case, improper communication between bailiff and foreperson was fundamental error.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Moryl v. Ransone, No. 46A04-1112-CT-710, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 9, 2013).

A proposed medical malpractice complaint is not considered filed when a copy of the proposed complaint is delivered to a third-party carrier.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

VanPatten v. State, No. 02S03-1205-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2013).

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.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion