“[T]he concealment-tolling provision under Indiana Code § 35-41-4-2(h)(2) requires a positive act by the defendant that is calculated to conceal the fact that a crime has been committed.”
Criminal
Madden v. State, No. 39A01-1404-CR-173, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 4, 2015).
Probation condition for supervision by community corrections “with determination of appropriate conditions to be made by” community corrections was not an improper delegation of authority to decide whether probationer should be subject to electronic monitoring.
Tiplick v. State, No. 49A04-1312-CR-617, __ N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 27, 2015).
The dealing in a synthetic drug and possession of a synthetic drug offenses, as in effect in 2012, are unconstitutionally vague.
N.S. v. State, No. 49A05-1407-JV-338, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 28, 2015).
Illegal search of car passenger’s backpack was a “lead” which produced testimony of driver about his prior knowledge of the backpack’s contraband contents, so that the driver’s testimony was “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should have been suppressed.
Cleary v. State, No. 45S03-1404-CR-295, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 15, 2015).
Jury reached guilty verdicts on lesser charges but hung on greater charges; court did not enter judgment on the guilty verdicts; “[i]t is unequivocal that if the trial court had entered a judgment of conviction for those lesser-included misdemeanors, Indiana Code § 35-41-4-3(a) would have barred the State from retrying Cleary”; concludes “that Indiana Code § 35-41-4-3(a)’s implied acquittal provision does not apply when the jury returns a guilty verdict on a lesser-included offense but deadlocks on the greater charge.”