Admission of course-of-investigation evidence was error.
Criminal
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.
Williams v. State, No. 34A02-1406-CR-418, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 9, 2014).
When auto’s tail light had a hole in it such that the white light from the hole was “overwhelming,” as long as there was some red light plainly visible at 500 feet there was no violation of the tail lamp statute and the stop predicated on a tail lamp violation was illegal.