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.
Criminal
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.
Hayko v. State, No. 23S-CR-13, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 22, 2023).
To lay a proper foundation for the admission of opinion testimony under Evidence Rule 608(a), the proponent must establish that the witness’s opinion is both rationally based on their personal knowledge and would be helpful to the trier of fact.
Hessler v. State, No. 22A-CR-989, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 26, 2023).
Because the new substantive double jeopardy framework established in Wadle constituted a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions, it applies retroactively to cases that were not yet final at the time our Supreme Court adopted Wadle. Because Wadle replaced the common-law double jeopardy rules, the common law rule that an offense cannot be enhanced based on the same injury that established another offense for which the defendant had already been punished, is no longer applicable.