Otte v. State, No. 84A01-1108-CR-356, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2012).
Rejects argument that expert’s testimony that victims of domestic violence often recant their stories was improper vouching in violation of Evidence Rule 704(b).
Published by the Indiana Judicial Center
Rejects argument that expert’s testimony that victims of domestic violence often recant their stories was improper vouching in violation of Evidence Rule 704(b).
Strength of case against him and magnitude of benefit he received from his plea bargain were primary factors supporting conclusion prisoner would have entered his guilty plea even had defense counsel properly advised him of the potential for deportation.
In an action for breach of employment contract, damages for breach of notice provisions are limited to compensation for the notice period.
Under the circumstances of the case, the 25 year delay in sentencing did not violate defendant’s right to speedy sentencing.
Officer did not violate Fourth Amendment or Indiana Constitution by having defendant drive his truck two miles down the road to a gas station to continue the investigatory stop made on reasonable suspicion, when the truck was blocking the single lane of traffic, it was raining, and the defendant’s driving posed no severe risks.
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