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.
Criminal
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.”
Brewer v. State, No. 82A05-1410-CR-458, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 4, 2015).
Under Indiana’s statutory double jeopardy protections, defendant’s Kentucky convictions for receiving stolen property (a car) and fleeing/evading police (1) barred subsequent prosecution for having stolen the car in Indiana, but (2) did not bar prosecution for resisting law enforcement in Indiana for evading police in Evansville before crossing the border in Kentucky.
Jenkins v. State, No. 20A04-1410-CR-489, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2015).
“Breaking” element of burglary was satisfied when defendant gained entry to an apartment by pushing aside a person standing near the entry, then immediately subduing the occupant by force.