Unless there is new evidence or information discovered to warrant additional charges, the potential for prosecutorial vindictiveness is too great for courts to allow the State to bring additional charges against a defendant after that defendant exercises their right to a fair trial by moving for a mistrial.
Criminal
Wanke v. State, No. 23A-CR-2423, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 25, 2024).
It was reversible error to allow a nurse testify as to the statements made by child without affirmative evidence in the record that the child understands “the role of [a] medical professional and the purpose of [her] visit” with the professional “in order for us to infer that the child was motivated to speak truthfully” to that professional for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.
A.W. v. State, No. 23S-JV-40, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 12, 2024).
Under the second step of the double jeopardy test announced in the Indiana Supreme Court’s Wadle opinion, when assessing whether an offense is factually included, a court may examine only the facts as presented on the face of the charging instrument. Moreover, where ambiguities exist in a charging instrument about whether one offense is factually included in another, courts must construe those ambiguities in the defendant’s favor, and thus find a presumptive double jeopardy violation. In this event, the State can later rebut this presumption at the third step of the Wadle test.
Teising v. State, No. 24S-CR-55, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 15, 2024).
The maxim that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” does not relieve the State of its burden to prove criminal intent, even when the defendant bases their claimed lack of intent on a misunderstanding of the civil law.
Morgan v. State, No. 23A-CR-1489, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 9, 2024).
Under Indiana’s Red Flag Law, when a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without first obtaining a warrant, the officer must submit an affidavit to a court describing why the officer believes the individual is dangerous. If the court finds probable cause exists to believe the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency to retain the firearm. To sustain the dangerousness finding, the State must prove, at a hearing, by clear and convincing evidence material facts demonstrating the individual is dangerous.