To convict a person of violating a protective order, State must prove that communication with a third party was intended to be communicated to the protected party.
Criminal
Perry v. State, No. 02A04-1608-CR-1890, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 11, 2017).
In order to convict a defendant for domestic violence when the victim recants, there must be substantive evidence based on more than the witnesses lack of credibility.
Love v. State, No. 71S03-1612-CR-00641, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 11, 2017).
Appellate courts must apply the same standard of review to video evidence as to other evidence, unless the video evidence indisputably contradicts the trial court’s findings.
Leonard v. State, No. 71S00-1509-LW-539, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 2, 2017).
In the Richmond Hill explosion murder case, resulting in trial court imposition of two consecutive life without parole sentences, the evidence was sufficient; the State proved the intentional burning aggravator beyond a reasonable doubt; recorded phone calls from prison between defendant and special agent were properly admitted; and, Indiana’s life without parole statute is constitutional.
Zanders v. State, No. 15S01-1611-CR-571, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 4, 2017).
Under the third-party doctrine, police are not required to obtain a search warrant to get historical cell-site location information from a cell phone provider.