Exigent circumstances justified officers’ warrantless seizure of a handgun they saw defendant place inside an apartment front door as they approached, so that the seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Indiana Constitution, Article I, § 11.
Criminal
Oswalt v. State, No. 35S02-1401-CR-10, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 22, 2014).
Parties satisfy “the exhaustion rule” required for “appellate review of for-cause challenges to prospective jurors” “the moment they use their final peremptory challenge” – regardless of whether the final peremptory is used to strike “a candidate they consider undesirable” or instead is used to cure the trial court’s refusal to strike an allegedy incompetent one for cause.” And parties who comply with the exhaustion rule and also show they were unable to remove any objectionable juror because they had no peremptories left may have appellate review of any denial of a motion to strike for cause, even if no challenged juror actually served on the jury.
Richard v. State, No. 46A05-1312-CR-628, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 8, 2014).
Evidence that housing complex was at the time of trial a “family housing complex” as defined by statute was insufficient to prove the drug transaction was within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex at the time of the alleged offense.
Corbin v. State, No. 75S03-1401-CR-13, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 30, 2014).
Affirms trial court’s refusal to dismiss attempted child molesting charge, which defendant asserted entailed no more than an invitation, not “urging” or “persuasion.”
Griffith v. State, No. 48A02-1310-CR-909, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sep. 30, 2014).
Trial court properly excluded testimony from two witnesses about prior inconsistent statements made by a witness who had testified earlier.