“[T]he ‘actual evidence’ test . . . is applicable to cases in which there has been an acquittal on one charge and retrial on another charge after a hung jury.”
Criminal
Oney v. State, No. 49S05-1212-CR-668, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Aug. 28, 2013).
“Although a defendant who pleads guilty to driving while suspended as a habitual traffic violator may not later challenge the plea contending that an underlying offense has been set aside on grounds of procedural error, a defendant may be entitled to relief where an underlying offense has been set aside on grounds of material error.”
Johnson v. State, No. 49A02-1301-CR-28, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 20, 2013).
Rejects arguments that traffic stop, based on officer’s belief vehicle was in violation of the Window Tint Statute, was illegal under the Indiana Constitution or violated an implicit prohibition in the Statute itself of “unbridled discretion” for police to pull over vehicles with window tint.
Walls v. State, No. 55A05-1211-CR-603, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 22, 2013).
Tenants had a sufficient possessory interest in their apartment doors and thresholds and the immediate adjacent areas to request, for criminal trespass purposes, that a person leave those areas and stop banging on their doors.
Spalding v. State, No. 49A04-1210-CR-534, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 9, 2013).
Disagrees with prior Court of Appeals opinion and holds that, (1) when the subject of an Indiana criminal charge is being held in federal custody outside Indiana, (2) no detainer is filed against him on the Indiana charge, and (3) he is then brought into Indiana by federal authority, Criminal Rule 4 does not apply.