A defendant must object to a trial date set beyond the one-year guarantee in Criminal Rule 4(C) in time to permit the trial court to reset the trial for a date within the proper period.
Criminal
Randall v. State, No. 49A02-1708-CR-1779, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 26, 2018).
When defendant was found leaning forward or slumped over in the driver’s seat of a car with the driver’s door open and ignition off, the trial court’s denial of motion to suppress evidence applying the community caretaking function was error, but its ruling was sustainable on the emergency aid exception.
Kirby v. State, No. 18S‐CR‐79, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 27, 2018).
Defendant may not challenge a collateral consequence of an ex post facto statute barring him from school property through a post-conviction proceeding, but he may pursue his claim in a declaratory‐judgment action.
Flowers v. State, No. 10A01-1703-CR-586, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 18, 2018).
A judge is not bound by a Community Corrections Director’s request to revoke placement in a community corrections program.
A senior judge’s order must be treated the same as an order entered by the presiding judge.
Poortenga v. State, No. 45A03-1709-CR-2148, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 10, 2018).
Evidence of an individual’s alcohol concentrate equivalent is relevant to the question of whether an individual was intoxicated, regardless of whether the individual’s alcohol concentrate equivalent was more or less than 0.08.