Because the new substantive double jeopardy framework established in Wadle constituted a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions, it applies retroactively to cases that were not yet final at the time our Supreme Court adopted Wadle. Because Wadle replaced the common-law double jeopardy rules, the common law rule that an offense cannot be enhanced based on the same injury that established another offense for which the defendant had already been punished, is no longer applicable.
Criminal
Owen v. State, No. 21S-LW-333, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 8, 2023).
The record reflects that the statutory aggravators were supported by sufficient evidence and the jury was properly instructed; defendant was properly sentenced to life without parole.
Trejo v. State, No. 22A-CR-1817, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 2, 2023).
Lack of volition is not a defense to an alleged probation violation.
Norton v. State, No. 22A-CR-2314, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 23, 2023).
There is no provision of the appellate rules which permits trial courts to expand the time limit in which to seek appeal as prescribed by Appellate Rule 9
Moore v. State, No. 22A-CR-1979, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2023).
In distinguishing between the odor of marijuana and hemp for purposes of determining whether there was probable cause to search a vehicle, courts apply the “fair probability” test. Although it may equally possible that a strong odor emanating from a vehicle may be hemp just as marijuana, circumstances may create a fair probability—that is, “a substantial chance”—that the vehicle contains contraband.