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.
Criminal
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.
Quinn v. State, No. 20A03-1503-CR-82, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 8, 2015).
Charges for 1988 child molestation and criminal confinement were not barred by statute of limitations; State’s discovery in 2012 of DNA evidence implicating defendant was reasonably diligent, and charges were filed within one year of that discovery.
Henderson v. State, No. 34A02-1501-CR-33, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2015).
There is no statutory, constitutional, or common law restriction on court’s discretion to impose consecutive sentences for misdemeanor offenses. However, court must conduct indigency hearing before imposing a fine.
Hale v. State, No. 35A02-1501-CR-57, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2015).
Denial of motion to depose codefendants, though error, was not properly preserved for appeal; when codefendants testified at trial, defendant did not seek to exclude their testimony, renew his request to depose them, or seek a continuance.