The date of counsel’s appearance, not of counsel’s appointment, determines whether a defendant’s pro se Criminal Rule 4(B) speedy trial motion is valid.
Criminal
Castillo-Aguilar v. State, No. 20A04-1003-CR-195, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 20, 2012).
Some questions on police “information sheet,” purportedly used for administrative booking purposes, were investigative in nature under the circumstances of the case, and as the defendant was in custody when given the sheet to fill out the investigative questions were Miranda “interrogation” requiring Miranda warnings before defendant filled the sheet out in order for his answers to be admissible in evidence.
Woodson v. State, No. 49A05-1106-CR-306, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2012).
Officer lacked reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop merely because individual stopped was in a drug “hot-zone.”
Sickels v. State, No. 20A03-1102-CR-66, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2012).
Conviction on three counts of nonsupport for failure to pay in gross support order for three children did not violate Indiana Double Jeopardy law’s actual evidence doctrine; nonsupport restitution “victims” were the children, not the custodial parent; restitution order erroneously characterized restitution as “a civil judgment.”
Smith v. Cain, No. 10–8145, 565 U.S. __ (Jan. 20, 2012).
State’s failure to disclose to defense the sole eyewitness’s pre-trial statement to detective that he could not identify any of the gunmen, when eyewitness identified defendant at trial as the first gunman, violated the due process prosecution disclosure rule of Brady v. Maryland.