A probation revocation court must apply the preponderance standard, not probable cause, in determining whether the state has proved the defendant committed a new offense.
Criminal
Santiago v. State, No. 45A03-1207-CR-304, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 5, 2013).
Taken as a whole, trial court’s presumption of innocence instructions were proper, even though they did not contain express direction that the jurors must fit the evidence to the presumption of innocence or reconcile the evidence on the theory defendant was innocent.
K.W. v. State, No. 49S02-1301-JV-20, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 22, 2013)
Evidence was insufficient to prove element of “forcibly” resisting law enforcement; suggests legislative scrutiny of distinction between law enforcement officer and school-discipline officer for purposes of resisting law enforcement offense.
Sickels v. State, No. 20S03-1206-CR-308, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 22, 2013).
“[A] custodial parent may be a ‘victim’ for purposes of restitution based on a child-support arrearage even if the children have been emancipated.”
Brock v. State, No. 79A04-1208-CR-433, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2013).
Consecutivity for intimidation sentence enhanced with habitual offender status and for “progressive penalty statute” enhanced second-conviction auto theft did not violate the prohibition of “double enhancement” when the enhancements were not based on the same prior felony conviction.