Steen v. State, No. 49A02-1211-CR-877, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2013).
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.”
Published by the Indiana Judicial Center
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.”
Trial delays caused by toxicology witness’s repeated failures to appear for defense deposition were properly counted against the State in computing the Criminal Rule 4(C) one-year period.
Affirms the jury’s $14.5 million verdict on the defendant’s defamation counterclaim.
Holds that recent U.S. Supreme Court Confrontation Clause decisions do not alter the result in the earlier Indiana holding that breath test equipment certificates of inspection are not “testimonial” and accordingly are admissible without implicating the Confrontation Clause.
Trial judge erred by not allowing defendant to play portion of deposition audiotape in which witness made a statement inconsistent with the witness’s trial testimony.
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