Statute requiring “a person who is required to register as a sex or violent offender in any jurisdiction” to likewise register in Indiana did not violate Indiana ex post facto clause as applied to Texas offender who moved to Indiana after 2006 enactment of that statute. Texas law already required offender to register; maintaining that status in Indiana was not punitive under the intent-effects test.
Criminal
State v. Zerbe, No. 49S05-1509-MI-529, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Feb. 25, 2016).
Michigan sex offender was not distinguishable from offender in Tyson v. State, even though Michigan enacted its registration requirement two years after defendant’s offense. Relevant question was not whether Michigan registration requirement was ex post facto law, but only that the requirement existed at the time offender moved to Indiana.
Wilford v. State, No. 49S02-1602-CR-110, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Feb. 26, 2016).
Officer’s conclusory testimony failed to establish how his decision to impound a car conformed to an established departmental impound policy; impoundment and subsequent inventory search were therefore invalid.
Hinton v. State, No. 49A04-1508-CR-1167, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 29, 2016).
Evidence that defendant had arrow “nocked” in his bow was sufficient to establish “endangers a person” element of B-misdemeanor public intoxication.
Cox v. State, No. 29A02-1508-PC-1221, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 29, 2016).
Post-conviction court was required, upon indigent prisoner’s proper request, to forward petition to the State Public Defender’s Office for review. Failure to do so required reversal.