Incriminating statements made to detectives during an early morning interrogation in the county jail were inadmissible because the defendant had invoked his right to counsel at an interrogation two days before.
Criminal
Wilson v. State, No. 88A01-1301-CR-2, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 31, 2013).
Finding of contempt was not an abuse of discretion when woman had been granted use and derivative use immunity.
Sowers v. State, No. 08A02-1208-CR-640, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 16, 2013)
In this case, improper communication between bailiff and foreperson was fundamental error.
VanPatten v. State, No. 02S03-1205-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2013).
The Evidence Rule 803(4) hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment was not shown to apply, because there was insufficient evidence the six year-old understood the need to provide the forensic nurse with truthful information about the suspected molestation.
Steen v. State, No. 49A02-1211-CR-877, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2013).
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.”