When circumstances did not support a pat-down of stopped motorist, officer’s statement he would pat-down the motorist if the motorist chose to get out of the car was an ultimatum rather than a choice to which the motorist could consent.
Criminal
Pietrowski v. State, No. 46A03-1306-CR-222, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 18, 2014).
Defense motion to exclude intoxication evidence, based on argument legislation transferring Department of Toxicology from Indiana University to the State abrogated existing toxicology regulations and required adoption of new ones, was properly denied.
State v. Coats, No. 49S02-1305-CR-328, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 18, 2014).
A trial court has no discretion “to refuse to order commitment to the DMHA where it concludes that a defendant found not competent to stand trial can never be returned to competency.”
Inman v. State, No. 49S00-1207-LW-000376, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 11, 2014).
“[T]he better practice going forward would be for trial courts to refuse to accept exhibits when tendered ex parte, unless the opposing party has been given notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matter.”
Morgan v. State, No. 49A02-1304-CR-386, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 13, 2014).
“Annoys” as used in the public intoxication offense is unconstitutionally vague.