The trial court violated defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights of confrontation when the court required the witnesses to wear masks while testifying without entering specific facts of necessity. However, the error was harmless.
Criminal
Akinribade v. State, No. 22A-CR-1757, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 27, 2023).
The Trial Rules govern discovery and, as incorporated by Indiana’s Criminal Rules, apply to all criminal proceedings so far as they are not in conflict with any specific rule adopted by the Indiana Supreme Court for the conduct of criminal proceedings.
Keene v. State, No. 22A-CR-1335, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2023).
The test for awarding credit for pre-trial confinement remains whether the defendant’s pre-trial confinement is the result of the criminal charge for which the sentence is being imposed, including where plea agreements involving multiple cases are involved.
Carmack v. State, No. 21S-LW-00471, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 12, 2023).
Sudden heat is characterized as anger, rage, resentment, or terror sufficient to obscure the reason of an ordinary person, preventing deliberation and premeditation, excluding malice, and rendering a person incapable of cool reflection. Here, the State carried its evidentiary burden in negating the mitigating factor and voluntary manslaughter requirement of “sudden heat,” and Defendant’s murder conviction and LWOP sentence.
Passarelli v. State, No. 22A-CR-1116, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 9, 2023).
The objective component of self-defense, as adopted by our courts, is analyzed from the standpoint of an ordinary “reasonable person.” The question being presented to the fact-finder is whether an ordinary reasonable person would have responded with deadly force if confronted with the same circumstances that defendant confronted.