A defendant must have the opportunity to personally question a witness to probe their recollection, test their reliability, expose their bias, and draw out favorable facts through cross-examination. When a trial court denies a defendant this constitutional right, the error requires reversal unless the State proves it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. To determine whether the State met its burden, reviewing courts consider several factors: the significance of the improperly admitted evidence to the State’s case; whether that evidence was merely cumulative; whether it was corroborated or contradicted by other evidence; and the extent of cross-examination or questioning on the improperly admitted evidence.
Criminal
Elzey v. State, No. 24S-CR-436, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 20, 2025).
The Indiana State Public Defender must represent all indigent individuals who are confined in a penal facility in Indiana or committed to the Department of Correction due to a criminal conviction or delinquency adjudication. However, the Public Defender Statute, I.C. 33-40-1-2, and our post-conviction rules specifically Post-Conviction Rule 1(9)(a), still enable SPD to exercise its discretion in agreeing to representation.
Anderson v. State, No. 25S-CR-294, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 13, 2025).
A sentence is illegal if it is outside the prescribed statutory range or is unconstitutional. An appeal challenging an illegal sentence cannot be waived.
Adkins v. State, No. 25A-PC-438, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2025).
Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(10) limits a court’s authority to resentence a defendant for the same offense after post-conviction relief. It neither curtails the State’s authority to file a new charge based on new evidence nor restricts the sentencing court from applying the proper statutory range to that conviction.
Lanier v. State, No. 25A-CR-769, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2025).
Under the Indiana Constitution, the question of whether an alleged mistake of law is reasonable under Article 1, Section 11, requires a determination of whether the alleged mistake of the law is reasonable under Litchfield.