Opening a door to answer a knock by police, neither abandons a person’s privacy interest in their home, nor is it an invitation to the officers knocking to enter the home. Moreover, probable cause alone is not enough to justify a warrantless search of a home. It must be joined with exigent circumstances to dispense with the warrant requirement.
Criminal
Hochstetler v. State, No. 22A-CR-02154, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 31, 2023).
Under the intimidation statute, actual malice is based on the mindset of the defendant when the defamatory words are communicated, not their intention while contemplating the defamatory act. Inherent in actual malice is the necessity for speech to be disseminated rather than merely threatened. Moreover, criminal conduct is not protected by the church-autonomy doctrine even if carried out using communications about church doctrine or policy.
Hinton v. State, No. 23A-CR-107, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 21, 2023).
The plain-view exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement allows an officer to seize an object without a warrant if (1) the officer is lawfully in a position from which to view the object, (2) the incriminating character of the object is immediately apparent, and (3) the officer has a lawful right of access to the object.
State v. Lyons, No. 23S-CR-163, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 27, 2023).
Before excluding evidence as a Trial Rule 37 discovery sanction, a trial court must find that the exclusion is the sole remedy available to avoid substantial prejudice, or that the sanctioned party’s culpability reflects an egregious discovery violation.
Harris v. State, No. 23S-CR-165, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2023).
The jury in a habitual offender proceeding must be allowed to make the ultimate legal determination of whether the defendant has the status of habitual offender. Only evidence of the defendant’s alleged convictions is relevant to that determination. A defendant has no constitutional right to present irrelevant evidence.