The Indiana Supreme Court reiterated in Wadle, that an offense is factually included when the charging instrument alleges that the means used to commit the crime charged include all of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense. Here, juvenile’s adjudications for possession of a machine gun and dangerous possession of a firearm were factually included and thus, entry of judgment on both counts was a violation of double jeopardy.
Criminal
Awbrey v. State, No. 21A-CR-2867, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 6, 2022).
Pursuant to the plain language of Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2, the level of an intoxicant in the defendant’s blood, standing alone, is insufficient to establish impairment.
Armes v. State, No. 21A-CR-2384, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 8, 2022).
The emergency rule promulgated by the Indiana Board of Pharmacy (the Board) purporting to add MDMB to Schedule I, fails to provide adequate information for a person of ordinary intelligence to determine whether he or she is dealing a substance that contains MDMB, and therefore, it is unconstitutionally vague.
Miller v. State, No. 22S-CR-59, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2022).
A party invites an error if it was part of a deliberate, well-informed trial strategy, which means there must be evidence of counsel’s strategic maneuvering at trial to establish invited error. As to juror challenges, an anticipated refusal does not excuse compliance with the exhaustion rule; a party must still try to use a peremptory challenge even if he believes it will be unsuccessful.
Theobald v. State, No. 21A-CR-2746, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 30, 2022).
The “new-crime exception” to the Miranda exclusionary rule applies when a statement is made by a person who is subject to custodial interrogation but not given Miranda warnings. Under such circumstances, the statement is still admissible if the statement itself is evidence of a new crime.