For purposes of aggravated battery, “substantial risk of death or … protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ” is not a material element of the offense, but rather a result to which mens rea is inapplicable.
Criminal
Williams v. State, No. 29A02-1506-CR-528, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 10, 2016).
Defendant entered an “open plea,” despite plea agreement’s mistaken recitation that it was not, because trial court retained discretion over placement of the sentence. Defendant therefore did not waive right to appeal sentence.
Blaize v. State, No. 26S00-1410-LW-771, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., March 1, 2016).
Trial judge’s comments to jury, though perhaps ill-advised, did not vouch for the credibility of the State’s cell-phone tower evidence and undermine Defendant’s alibi defense.
Jackson v. State, No. 48S02-1509-CR-554, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Mar. 2, 2016).
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.
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.