An officer has the reasonable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment for a traffic stop even if she is mistaken about the law she believes was violated, as long as her mistake of law is “objectively reasonable.”
Criminal
Blount v. State, No. 49S02-1405- CR-338, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 17, 2014).
Admission of course-of-investigation evidence was error.
Elvers v. State, No. 34A02-1404-CR-239, __ N.E. 3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 17, 2014).
Because the dealing in a synthetic drug offense prohibits dealing in a synthetic substance “in any pure or adulterated form,” a single charge of dealing in the synthetic substance JWH-122 should have been used rather than separate dealing charges for each brand name of “spice” product containing the synthetic substance JWH-122.
Mack v. State, No. 39A-01-1401-CR-6, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2014).
“Among other things, we hold that, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case, a lapse of at least ‘a few minutes’ between a declarant’s perception of an event and his statement describing that event was too long to qualify the statement as a present sense impression under Indiana Evidence Rule 803(1).”
Adcock v. State, No. 47A01-1407-PC-283, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 8, 2014).
Appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise insufficiency of the evidence for defendant’s sex crime convictions.