As an issue of first impression, this case holds that the hearsay rule does not prohibit admission of mail exhibits to demonstrate the defendant’s name and address were on mail found in a specific location.
Criminal
Mallory v. State, No. 20A03-1403-MI-76, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2014)
Former statutory provision that victim’s statement “shall” be considered did not authorize court to refuse expungement when all petition requirements were met.
Ward v. State, No. 49A02-1401-CR-25, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2014).
Statements by belt whipping victim to medical personnel identifying defendant as attacker were not “testimonial,” so that Sixth Amendment Confrontation right did not apply to prevent personnel from testifying about victim’s statements.
Littrell v. State, No. 79A02-1401-CR-24, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 21, 2014).
When defendant had moved for a trial within seventy days pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B), the ninety day extension authorized by Criminal Rule 4(D) for unavailable state’s evidence ran from the end of the seventy day period, not from the earlier date when the trial court granted the extension.
Gomillia v. State, No. 49S02-1408-CR-521, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 12, 2014).
Affirms “this basic premise” – “[w]here a trial court’s reason for imposing a sentence greater than the advisory sentence includes material elements of the offense, absent something unique about the circumstances that would justify deviating from the advisory sentence, that reason is ‘improper as a matter of law.’”