Affirms trial court’s rejection of the defendant’s “settled insanity” defense, since there was some evidence that the defendant’s behavior was the result of his voluntary abuse of alcohol.
Criminal
Southern Union Co. v. United States, No. 11–94, __U.S.__ (June 21, 2012).
Apprendi v. New Jersey requires a jury resolution of facts on which imposition of a criminal fine rests.
Sexton v. State, No. 02A03-1110-CR-465, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 11, 2012).
When the plea bargain called for dismissal of a felon in possession of a handgun charge, “it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to consider the fact that Sexton shot his victim using a handgun it was illegal for a person with five felony convictions to possess.”
Baker v. State, No. 89S01-1109-CR-543, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 12, 2012).
Evidence that defendant, who broke and entered, had opened cupboards and drawers was sufficient to support an inference that the defendant was looking for something to take and consequently had intended to commit theft when he broke and entered.
Ervin v. State, No. 29A05-1109-CR-454, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 30, 2012
Trial court properly concluded that evidence should not be suppressed as Ind. Code § 9-30-2-2 was not implicated. The statute provides that an officer may not arrest a person “for a violation of an Indiana law regulating the use and operation of a motor vehicle on an Indiana highway” unless the officer is in uniform or a marked police vehicle, but defendant was not arrested for violating a law regulating the use of a motor vehicle.