When victim had come to the fire station on her own and was being treated by firemen, her statements in response to firefighters’ questions were not “testimonial” under the Crawford Confrontation Clause rule.
Criminal
Teague v. State, No. 89A01-1202-CR-86, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 5, 2012).
Holds under the facts in this case that “a 911 recording that involves statements by a caller that were relayed from a victim [were] admissible where the victim had personal knowledge of the underlying incident but the caller did not,” on the basis that the caller’s frame of mind and lack of opportunity to reflect qualified her 911 statements as excited utterances.
Sisson v. State, No. 09A02-1102-CR-199, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 5, 2012).
Presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness was not shown when State refiled recidivist allegations for the retrial after the court had declared a mistrial because the jury could not reach a verdict.
Lebo v. State, No. 46A05-1202-CR-104, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 16, 2012).
The B misdemeanor offense of failure to report child abuse or neglect is a continuing offense, and hence is not subject to the misdemeanor statute of limitations.
White v. State, No. 90A04-1111-CR-621, __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 21,2012),
Statements of murder victim were properly admitted under Evidence Rule 804(b)(5), the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” hearsay exception.