When defendant passenger testified that the driver was the dealer of the methamphetamine in a make-up bag next to her purse and that he threatened to hurt her and her children if she did not say the meth belonged to her, there was a “serious evidentiary dispute” as to whether defendant had intent to deal the meth, as charged, and it was reversible error not to instruct on the lesser included of possession of methamphetamine.
Criminal
Hoglund v. State, No. 90S02-1105-CR-294, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 8, 2012).
Testimony that a “child is not prone to exaggerate or fantasize about sexual matters” will no longer be allowed.
Hensley v. State, No. 63A01-1105-CR-195, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 8, 2012).
Search of probationer’s home was not truly conducted for probation reasons, and was an impermissible investigative search by police unsupported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Howes v. Fields, No. 10–680, 565 U.S. __ (Feb. 21, 2012).
There is no brightline rule that when an inmate is questioned in prison about events in the outside world there is custody for Miranda purposes.
State v. Vickers, No. 88A05-1106-PC-317, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 21, 2012).
Fact that there was no record of defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was not sufficient to meet his P-C.R. burden to prove his waiver was involuntary.