Acts of domestic battery were sufficiently compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action so as to constitute a single transaction for purposes of the continuous crime doctrine.
Criminal
Sullivan v. State, 16A01-1512-CR-2175, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., July 8, 2016).
Trial court abused its discretion in finding that defendant’s violation warranted revoking his community corrections placement and in ordering him to serve eighteen months in jail.
Jimerson v. State, No. 52A02-1510-CR-1538, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2016).
“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.”
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.