Probable cause affidavit with “multiple levels of hearsay” did not pass the “substantial trustworthiness” test required by a probation revocation subject’s confrontation right.
Criminal
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.
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.