State’s failure to introduce conditions of probation into evidence was not the “better practice” and “runs the risk of not satisfying” the standard of review for probation revocation; however, probationer’s admission to unlawful conduct (smoking marijuana) after release from prison supported revocation.
Criminal
Wilford v. State, No. 49A02-1408-CR-534, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 27, 2015).
Impound of defendant’s borrowed car—and thus pre-towing inventory search—was proper despite no evidence of police department’s impound policy; car had multiple equipment problems making it unsafe and unlawful to drive away from parking lot where traffic stop occurred.
Amphonephong v. State, No. 02A03-1402-CR-88, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 27, 2015).
Order granting permission to file belated Notice of Appeal under Post-Conviction Rule 2(1) need not include specific findings about the defendant’s diligence or lack of fault.
Hatchett v. State, No. 49A02-1408-CR-561, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 28, 2015).
Jury was correctly instructed on invasion of privacy; but under actual-evidence test for double jeopardy, one phone call could support only one invasion of privacy conviction, even though it violated both a protective order and a no-contact order.
Young v. State, No. 49S02-1505-CR-275, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 14, 2015).
“[U]nder the unusual operative and procedural facts of this case—the actual shooter remaining unidentified, the resulting ambiguity as to whether these Defendants intended to carry out a shooting, the State’s choice to rely on the shooting alone in the charging instruments and at trial, and the trial court’s unambiguous finding of reasonable doubt on that particular theory—we hold Defendants lacked fair notice of the [murder by beating] charge of which they were ultimately convicted, which under these circumstances establishes fundamental error.”