“Where a jury is able to apply concepts without further assistance, highlighting individual exchanges or vouching for the truth or falsity of particular evidence is invasive.”
Criminal
Clippinger v. State, No. 71S00-1501-LW-950 , __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 28, 2016).
The legislature intended a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole to fit within the definition of a “term of imprisonment” and when imposing such a sentence the trial court must make certain specific findings.
Hurley v. State, No. 49A05-1601-CR-108, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 30, 2016).
Defendant’s inability to give a sufficient sample on a chemical breath test after being suspected of driving under the influence was a refusal to take the test.
Utah v. Strieff, No.14-1373, __US__ (June 20, 2016).
Evidence seized by police officer as part of his search incident to arrest is admissible because his discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest.
Pattison v. State, No. 27S05-1603-CR-115 , __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 22, 2016).
When jury instruction did not shift the State’s burden of proof, there is no error so fundamental as to preclude a fair trial.