Criminal Rule 4(C)’s one year period did not include the time required for the Indiana Supreme Court to appoint a special judge following withdrawal of a case from the trial judge pursuant to Criminal Rule 15 and Trial Rule 53.1. Affirms conviction for violating IC 14-15-4-1 on duties of a boat operator after a collision, but observes the “problematic” statute “permits no consideration of what is reasonable in any given emergency situation; nor does it permit citizens to engage in any balancing of considerations that arise in typical emergencies and are likely required by other statutes.”
Criminal
Walker v. State, No. 49S02-1312-CR-804, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Dec. 12, 2013).
Reviews caselaw on resisting law enforcement offense and affirms conviction when defendant “refused repeated orders to lay down on the ground and advanced aggressively, with his fists clenched, to within a few feet of the police officer issuing the orders before ultimately being tased.”
Speers v. State, No. 55S01-1312-CR-841, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Dec. 19, 2013).
“[A] laboratory technician involved in the chain of custody of DNA evidence” need not “testify at trial in order to satisfy the demands of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.”
Halliburton v. State, No. 20S00-1206-LW-560, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Dec. 19, 2013).
Limiting instruction erroneously advised the jury that the court had ruled the evidence to be relevant and admissible because the probative value outweighed any prejudice, but the error was not fundamental.
Carpenter v. State, No. 77A01-1306-CR-293, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 6 ,2013).
Evidence for revocation of probation was insufficient when it did not provide any basis to conclude phenobarbital was taken after period of probation had begun.