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

May 23, 2013 | Volume 40 Issue 19 | Filed Under: Juvenile | Tagged: , ,

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).

May 23, 2013 | Volume 40 Issue 19 | Filed Under: Civil | Tagged: ,

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)

May 16, 2013 | Volume 40 Issue 18 | Filed Under: Criminal | Tagged: , ,

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).

May 9, 2013 | Volume 40 Issue 17 | Filed Under: Civil | Tagged: ,

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

Steen v. State, No. 49A02-1211-CR-877, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2013).

May 2, 2013 | Volume 40 Issue 16 | Filed Under: Criminal | Tagged: ,

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.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion