Police officer’s statement in internal-affairs investigation was inadmissible because it was given under “Garrity notice” that it “cannot be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings” except perjury or obstruction of justice. Statement, and its evidentiary fruits, should therefore be suppressed.
Criminal
Allen v. State, No. 49A05-1410-CR-501, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Oct. 14, 2015).
Even though defendant had notified the trial court of his incarceration on other charges at a pre-trial conference, he was not entitled to discharge under Criminal Rule 4(C). All but 363 days of delay resulted from defendant’s failure to appear for trial when defense counsel failed to obtain a transport order to secure defendant’s attendance at trial as instructed, and was chargeable to defendant. Nor did the delay violate defendant’s constitutional speedy-trial rights.
Herron v. State, No. 49A04-1504-CR-149, ___ N.E.3d ___(Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 14, 2015).
Warrant for drawing intoxicated driver’s blood was invalid for lack of probable cause, where officer’s probable-cause affidavit marked an “X” next to certain boilerplate language, but wrote nothing in the corresponding blanks to provide specific facts to make an individualized showing as to defendant.
McKinley v. State, No. 49A02-1502-CR-78, ___ N.E.3d ___(Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 6, 2015).
Instructing the jury that defendant could be convicted under I.C. § 35-48-4-1(a)(2)(C) for “knowingly” possessing cocaine with intent to deliver was not fundamental error, although defining “intent to deliver” may have been preferable.
Tiplick v. State, No. 49S04-1505-CR-287, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Oct. 7, 2015).
Synthetic-drug (aka “spice”) and “look-alike drug” statutes are not unconstitutional for vagueness or delegating legislative authority to administrative agency. But synthetic-drug charging informations were insufficient, requiring dismissal without prejudice, for failing to reference the emergency administrative rule criminalizing the “XLR11” drug on which the charges were based.