The incredible dubiosity rule is inapplicable in the present case because the factors [1) a sole testifying witness; 2) testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion; and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence] were not present.
Criminal
McCowan v. State, No. 64S03-1408-Cr-516, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 25, 2015).
“[I]t is the absolute right of every criminal defendant to receive the following jury instruction upon request: ‘The presumption of innocence continues in favor of the defendant throughout the trial. You should fit the evidence to the presumption that the defendant is innocent if you can reasonably do so.’”
Sargent v. State, No. 49D07-1111-MI-44802, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 24, 2015).
Reverses forfeiture of vehicle on basis that employee detained in her workplace while trying to illegally take employer’s property was not in possession, constructive or otherwise, of her automobile parked in the lot at the place of employment.
Sandleben v. State, No. 82A01-1407-CR-284 (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 17, 2015).
Evidence defendant, “a complete stranger,” followed a girl closely in a store and took video with a small camera twice in nine months, making the girl “nervous and scared,” sufficed for a conviction of stalking; rejects claim that the taking of video was a constitutionally protected expressive activity.
Rutledge v. State, No. 85A04-1407-CR-330, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 19, 2015).
Circumstances leading to defendant’s OWI arrest amounted to a consensual encounter, but even considering the police action to have been an investigatory stop it was permitted by the Fourth Amendment and Indiana Constitution, Article I, Section 11.