Father did not have standing to object to admission of his stepson’s police statement on the basis that the officers had not followed the juvenile waiver of rights statute before questioning the stepson. Indiana Constitution’s Art. 1, § 11 search provision was violated when police officer read text messages on defendant’s cellphone at the time the officer seized the phone in a search incident to arrest.
Criminal
Jennings v. State, No. 53S01-1209-CR-526 (Ind., Sept. 18, 2012).
The Supreme Court has granted transfer in the misdemeanor sentencing case Jennings v. State, thereby vacating the Court of Appeals opinions found at 956 N.E.2d 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), on rehearing 962 N.E.2d 1260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Bisard, No. 49A04-1109-CR-459, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 12, 2012).
Under the Implied Consent statutes, “blood may be drawn at a licensed hospital or by certain people if not at a licensed hospital. To the extent that someone else draws blood, the evidence must show that the person is properly trained and performed the draw in a medically acceptable manner.”
Clarke v. State, No. 49A02-1202-PC-65, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 14, 2012).
Defendant’s circumstances, including the fact he had two children born in the United States after his guilty plea, did not suffice to support his claim that he would not have pled guilty had he received advice about deportation consequences from trial counsel.
Honeycutt v. State, No. 92A04-1203-CR-149, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 5, 2012).
Assuming a defendant can waive the right to have additional charges dismissed under the Successive Prosecution Statute, this defendant, who pled guilty after waiving counsel and being advised additional charges might be filed, did not waive the right as he was not aware of his rights under the Statute and was not represented by counsel.