In a criminal jury trial where the State presents evidence of a greater number of separate criminal offenses than charged and does not designate the specific act or acts on which it relies for conviction, a general unanimity instruction is insufficient. The jury should be instructed that they must either unanimously agree that the defendant committed the same act or acts or that the defendant committed all the acts alleged. However, where multiple similar acts are part of one continuous episode, a special unanimity instruction is not required.
Criminal
Cassity v. State, No. 23A-CR-209, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2023).
A law enforcement officer initiating a traffic stop must be wearing a distinctive uniform and a badge of authority. A distinctive uniform is the specific design, color, and patches officially adopted by the governmental authority employing the police officer so as to inform the public that the person stopping them is, in fact, a police officer employed by that respective department.
Finnegan v. State, No. 23A-MI-442, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 17, 2023).
A criminal contempt proceeding is a trial of a criminal case. Criminal contempt defendants are entitled to the same statutory protections afforded other criminal defendants, including the right to file a notice of insanity defense and obtain the appointment of appropriate experts to testify at the contempt proceedings.
Williams v. State, No. 23S-CR-283, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 19, 2023).
Absent a knowing and voluntary waiver, Ind. Code § 35-38-1-4(a) requires that a defendant must be personally present at the time sentence is pronounced.
Brook v. State, No. 22A-CR-2110, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2023).
When a defendant is charged with a crime elevated based upon a prior infraction, the trial court is not required to bifurcate the proceedings. Because Lorazepam’s status as a legend drug was not an issue of fact—it was identified in court by a name specifically designated as a controlled substance by the Indiana Code—the trial court did not erroneously invade the province of the jury by giving instructions that created a mandatory presumption indicating that the substance was classified as a legend drug.