Single larceny rule does not apply where robbery of husband, wife and daughter were distinct transactions; and continuous crime doctrine only applies where defendant has been charged multiple times with the same continuous offense.
Criminal
Osborne v. State, No. 29A02-1511-CR-1931, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., May 12, 2016).
The “community caretaking function of police officers may apply to justify a traffic stop where the officer does not otherwise observe a traffic violation or have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot,” but did not apply in this instance.
Simons v. State, No. 20A03-1512-CR-2158, __N.E. 3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., May 13, 2016).
Indiana statute requires sentencing judge to advise defendant of his earliest release date and maximum possible release date, and although such failure was harmless error in this case, the facts of another case might not lead to the same harmless error result.
Schuck v. State, No. 73A01-1507-CR-981, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 4, 2016).
Investigatory costs should be reimbursed because investigation was necessary even though defendant pleaded guilty.
Barany v. State, No. 17A04-1510-CR-1734, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 4, 2016).
Trial court properly denied defendant’s request for return of the firearm used to commit murder; defendant cannot profit from sale of murder weapon.