“[T]he three-step test for the discoverability of information outlined in State v. Cline (In re WTHR-TV) . . . is not reached when information is protected by an unqualified privilege unless a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights would be violated by enforcing the privilege.” Here, defendant had no Due Process or Sixth Amendment right to avoid the statutory victim advocate privilege, which prevented discovery of the records of a nongovernmental counseling agency.
Criminal
Crawford v. State, No. 49S05-1106-CR-370, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2011)
“[T]he three-step test for the discoverability of information outlined in State v. Cline (In re WTHR-TV)” applies here to non-privileged video taken by a private entity.
Cundiff v. State, No. 31A05-1008-CR-607, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2011)
Defendant incarcerated on other charges but released on recognizance on the charges at issue was not eligible for the Criminal Rule 4(B) speedy trial remedy.
Foster v. State, No. 02A03-1010-CR-596, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 10, 2011)
Police had probable cause to believe contraband was in the residence, but a warrantless search violated the Indiana Constitution when “[t]wenty-one days had elapsed since the controlled buy, and there [wa]s no evidence that exigent circumstances called for an immediate arrest.”
Curtis v. State, No. 49S02-1010-CR-620, __ N.E.2d __ (June 14, 2011)
“We hold that pending criminal charges do not violate a defendant’s right to due process if (1) the trial court has not involuntarily committed the defendant and (2) the trial court has not made an appropriate finding that the defendant will never be restored to competency. We also hold that . . . the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C).”