Indiana Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORA) requirement for out-of-state sex offender registrants to register in Indiana for the period required by the other jurisdiction was enacted before defendant moved to Indiana, and therefore was not unconstitutional ex post facto law.
Criminal
Zamani v. State, No. 32A05-1406-CR-264, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 29, 2015).
Since competence to stand trial had been at issue throughout the case, defendant failed to show good cause for belated request (five days before trial) to assert an insanity defense.
Elonis v. United States, No. 13-983, 575 U.S. ___ (June 1, 2015).
Federal crime of transmitting threats in interstate or foreign commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), requires some heightened awareness that the communication will be perceived as threatening; mere negligence on that point is insufficient.
Griffith v. State, No. 48S02-1501-CR-10, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., June 2, 2015).
Under Indiana Evidence Rule 613(b), extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement may be admitted before or after a witness is given “opportunity to explain or deny” the statement as the Rule requires, but confronting the witness first remains the “preferred method.”
Jackson v. State, No. 48A02-1409-CR-670, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 4, 2015).
(1) Because habitual-offender predicate offenses were not factually contested, trial judge who had prosecuted the predicate offenses was not required to recuse. (2) A “pattern of racketeering activity” under Indiana’s corrupt business influence statute, like similar federal RICO statute, requires proof that the predicate offenses “amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity.”