Warrantless entry of home was proper under federal and state constitutions, because occupant who answered the door had apparent authority to consent to the entry. Protective sweep of kitchen after consensual entry was proper under federal and state constitutions (declining to follow Cudworth v. State, 818 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)). Convictions for both A-felony cocaine dealing and C-felony possessing cocaine and a firearm violated double jeopardy, because charging information did not differentiate between sources of cocaine: small quantity found in home, or large quantity found in defendant’s pocket.
Criminal
Layman v. State, No. 20S04-1509-CR-548, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Sept. 18, 2015).
Evidence was insufficient to convict defendants of felony murder in the course of burglarizing a home they thought was unoccupied; none were armed or engaged in any “dangerously violent or threatening conduct” that was “clearly the mediate or immediate cause” of their co-perpetrator’s death.
Sharp v. State, No. 20S04-1509-CR-549, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Sept. 18, 2015).
Evidence was insufficient to convict defendants of felony murder in the course of burglarizing a home they thought was unoccupied; they were unarmed and did not engage in any dangerously violent of threatening conduct that was clearly the mediate or immediate cause of their co-perpetrator’s death.
Nunez v. State, No. 53A04-1407-CR-346, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 21, 2015).
Even though Spanish translation of jury-trial waiver form omitted recitals that waiver of jury trial was knowing, voluntary, and un-coerced, defendant was not entitled to relief without presenting evidence of some miscarriage like ignorance or coercion.
Hamilton v. State, No. 65A04-1412-CR-592, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 9, 2015).
Forensic interviewer’s testimony vouching for child victims’ testimony, admitted over defendant’s timely objection, was reversible error. But detective calling children’s statements “powerful” when interrogating defendant was not error because it was meant only to elicit response from defendant, not as assertion of fact.