Restitution award was abuse of discretion; there was no evidence that the injury for which restitution was sought was caused by, or even connected with, the defendant.
Criminal
Smart v. State, No. 29A02-1412-CR-887, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 4, 2015).
Defendant’s admission to injecting “methamphetamine,” without more, was insufficient to prove that he injected the legend drug “methamphetamine hydrochloride”; there was no evidence or basis for judicial notice that the two substances were the same
Buford v. State, No. 20A05-1408-CR-392, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 24, 2015).
Search warrant was invalid; uncorroborated anonymous tip of drug dealing at defendant’s home, plus police smelling burnt marijuana and seeing unspecified amount of marijuana “shake” on table in the home, did not establish probable cause of drug dealing.
Kowalskey v. State, No. 32A01-1503-CR-99, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2015).
Defendant’s conduct did not waive his right to counsel. His oral and written requests for the trial court to compel discovery were not obstreperous, and trial court had neither adequately advised defendant of the dangers of self-representation nor made necessary findings on whether his conduct under the circumstances constituted knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.
Sampson v. State, No. 87S01-1410-CR-684, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., July 30, 2015).
Bar on “vouching” testimony under Evid. R. 704(b) and Hoglund v. State (Ind. 2012) also bars opinion testimony of whether a witness shows “signs or indicators” of having been “coached,” unless defendant opens the door by an express or implied claim of coaching. (Overruling Kindred v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) and Archer v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).)