After magistrate had presided at trial, judge properly ruled on motion to correct error after reviewing tape recording of trial.
Criminal
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.
Barnes v. State, No. 82S05-1007-CR-343, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 20, 2011).
On rehearing, “we hold that the Castle Doctrine is not a defense to the crime of battery or other violent acts on a police officer,” and “[w]e also emphasize that this holding does not alter, indeed says nothing, about the statutory and constitutional boundaries of legal entry into the home or any other place.”
Gilbert v. State, No. 49A04-1102-CR-77, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 26, 2011).
Undercover officer’s statement that he wanted sex from prostitution suspect were not hearsay and accordingly were not subject to Confrontation Clause protection, and defendant in any event had opportunity to confront second officer when he testified as to the first’s statement.
Turner v. State, No. 49S00-0912-CR-565, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 28, 2011).
Indiana Rule of Evidence 702(b) permitted admission of “tool mark” expert’s “identification” opinion that marks on unfired cartridge found in defendant’s girlfriend’s home matched marks on fired cartridge casings found at murder scene, even though the firearm which might have made the “tool marks” was never found.