Trial court erred in ordering blanket suppression of all testimony from police officers who invoked their Fifth Amendment rights in connection with eavesdropping on defendant’s discussions with counsel. Officers’ misconduct was egregious, but blanket exclusion was too extreme and Court of Appeals was not willing to presume prejudice to defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. Instead, trial court would need to make individualized determinations of prejudice at trial in light of each witness’s testimony on direct examination.
Criminal
State v. Zerbe, No. 49A05-1410-MI-463, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 29, 2015).
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.
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.”