Under Indiana RICO offense, “continuity” is relevant to proving that the incidents of criminal conduct were “not isolated”; but unlike federal RICO, “continuity” is not itself a discrete element of the offense.
Criminal
McElfresh v. State, No. 32S01-1511-CR-667, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., March 3, 2016).
Even true statements may be coercive enough to influence a witness and will therefore support conviction for obstruction of justice if they were intended for that purpose.
Purdue v. State, No. 03A01-1508-CR-1154, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 24, 2016).
Defendant was entitled to credit for pretrial incarceration in connection with cause numbers dismissed in his plea agreement; the parties and court treated the cases as “related.”
Luke v. State, No. 15A01-1409-CR-407, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 24, 2016).
Conviction for stalking four victims, based on conduct spanning January 2012 to February 2014, violated actual-evidence double jeopardy principles when defendant had been convicted a month earlier for invasion of privacy committed against three of the same victims for conduct spanning three days in January 2014. The State presented substantial evidence of the three-day course of conduct in the subsequent trial; and both cases alleged a violation of the same previously issued no-contact order.
Hill v. State, No. 20A03-1507-CR-907, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 25, 2016).
Trial court was within its discretion to exclude alleged domestic-battery victim who had recanted her accusation as a defense witness. Error was invited by defendant’s insistence on calling witness, despite State’s and court’s repeated cautions.