Printing of store’s name “H & M” on security tags and store labels was not hearsay under Evidence Rule 801(c) because it was “not capable of being true or not true.”
Criminal
Guilmette v. State, No. 71A04-1205-CR-250, __ N.E.2 __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 22, 2013).
When authorities have taken an inmate’s clothing for inventory and safekeeping while he awaits trial, the Indiana Constitution requires that they must obtain a warrant to test the clothing regarding an unrelated, uncharged crime.
Erkins v. State, No. 58A01-1205-CR-215, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. Ap., Apr. 23, 2013).
The State may obtain a conviction of Class A conspiracy to commit robbery with proof that the conspirators intended to cause serious bodily injury in committing the robbery.
Robinson v. State, No. 20A04-1209-CR-561, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 23, 2013).
Brief contact twice with the fog line on a curvy road at night did not confer reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop.
Keck v. State, , __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 24, 2013).
Affirms trial judge’s conclusion that poor county road conditions made driving left-of-center necessary so that officer did not have a reasonable suspicion for stopping motorist driving on the left.