Indiana Pattern Jury Instructions – Criminal No. 9.05’s second sentence in its “intentionally” definition (“[i]f a person is charged with intentionally causing a result by his conduct, it must have been his conscious objective not only to engage in the conduct but also to cause the result”) “represents a correct statement of the law.”
Criminal
Carpenter v. State, No. 02S05-1404-CR-246, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 21, 2014).
Police’s warrantless home entry through open back door to retrieve an aggressive and bloody dog violated the Indiana Constitution, Article I, § 11 protection against unreasonable search.
Gallien v. State, No. 22A01-1402-PC-50, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2014).
Two burglaries committed one after the other, four miles apart, were a single episode of criminal conduct subject to the cap on consecutive sentencing, and appellate counsel’s assistance was ineffective for failure to raise the issue as a sentencing error.
Harris v. State, No. 02A03-1402-CR-73, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2014).
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.
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.