Prosecutor reprimanded for violating ethics limits on public statements about pending prosecutions.
Criminal
Garrett v. State, No. 32A05-1105-CR-239, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 7, 2012).
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.
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.