Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 opinion(s) today (and 16 NFP memorandum decision(s))
For publication opinions today (3):
In B.A. v. State of Indiana, a 26-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
B.A. appeals the juvenile court’s true finding that he committed delinquent acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute false reporting, a level 6 felony, and institutional criminal mischief as a class A misdemeanor. B.A. raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence certain statements, which he alleges were obtained in violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination. We affirm.In Jeremiah Edward Erickson v. State of Indiana , an 18-page opinion, Judge Robb writes:
Following a jury trial, Jeremiah Erickson was convicted of dealing in a Schedule IV controlled substance, a Level 3 felony, and the trial court sentenced him to fourteen years in the Indiana Department of Correction. Erickson now appeals, raising three issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence, and (2) whether Erickson’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence and Erickson’s sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm his conviction and sentence.In Dominique Brianna Bowman v. State of Indiana, an 11-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:
Appellant-Defendant, Dominique Brianna Bowman (Bowman), appeals her conviction for Count I, aggravated battery, a Level 3 felony, Ind. Code § 35-42- 2-1.5(2); and Count II, battery resulting in serious bodily harm, a Level 5 felony, I.C. § 35-42-2-1(b)(1);-(f)(1). We affirm.NFP civil decisions today (7):
Bowman raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: Whether the trial court properly permitted the victim to remove her prosthetic in the presence of the jury. * * *
Although the removal of a prosthetic eye in the presence of the jury is an issue of first impression for Indiana, other jurisdictions have addressed this situation under the particular circumstances of personal injury cases. * * *
In this case, the prosthetic eye was relevant and probative given the State’s burden to prove a protracted injury. While the State had already introduced into evidence, without objection by Bowman, a photograph taken on the date of the incident which clearly showed Washington’s eye injury and Bowman did not dispute that Washington had lost an eye due to the fight, the State was required to establish a “protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ., not merely an injury on the day of the incident. See I.C. § 35-42-2-1.5(2) (emphasis added). Even though, a “conventional alternative” was already in front of the jury, the State still needed the live demonstration to carry its burden of proof. See Crain, 736 N.E.2d at 1234. As in Crain, the trial court carefully balanced the probative value against the prosthetic’s prejudicial effect by requesting an initial demonstration outside the presence of the jury prior to admitting and publishing this evidence. See id. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial properly admitted the relevant and probative evidence of Washington’s actual physical injury and no unfair prejudice occurred.
* * * Despite the fight being over and Washington retreating, Bowman reached into the car, grabbed “some kind of object,” and hit Washington in the eye. (Tr. p. 34). Therefore, Bowman did not have a valid self-defense claim and she failed to establish that the removal of the prosthetic contributed to the guilty verdict.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court properly admitted and allowed publication of the actual physical injury.
NFP juvenile and criminal decisions today (9):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 29, 2017 11:16 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions