Defendant had no opportunity to object to the court’s declaration of a mistrial and accordingly cannot be said to have consented to it by failure to timely object, but the repeated improper comments by defense counsel in trial warranted the trial court’s declaration of a mistrial without defense consent, under the manifest necessity standard.
Criminal
GVVK v. State, No. 29A02-1012-CR-1418, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 5, 2011).
Modification of D felony operating while habitual traffic violator to A misdemeanor changes also provides that defendant’s driving privileges are suspended, not forfeited.
Robinson v. State, No. 49A02-1101-CR-13, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 5, 2011).
Probable cause affidavit with “multiple levels of hearsay” did not pass the “substantial trustworthiness” test required by a probation revocation subject’s confrontation right.
Tongate v. State, No. 29A02-1102-CR-223, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 16, 2011).
After magistrate had presided at trial, judge properly ruled on motion to correct error after reviewing tape recording of trial.
Stansberry v. State, No. 49A04-1102-CR-75, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2011).
When suspect charged the officer, it did not amount to the forcibly resisting, obstructing, or interfering with law enforcement required for a resisting law enforcement conviction.