When defendant testified he forthrightly had reported the fight he had been in to his probation officer, conveying the impression he was honest with the officer and hence honest generally, the State was entitled to establish a motive to lie about self-defense in the fight by eliciting the fact the defendant was on probation for methamphetamine offenses and faced significant jail time if probation was revoked.
Criminal
Lacey v. State, No. 02S05-1010-CR-601, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 10, 2011)
[T]he Indiana Constitution does not require prior judicial authorization for the execution of a warrant without knocking and announcing when justified by exigent circumstances known by police when the warrant was obtained,” although obtaining such prior judicial authorization is the better police practice.
Wilkins v. State, No. 02S03-1010-CR-604, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 10, 2011)
Police had sufficient reasons to execute search warrant without knocking and announcing, and in any event the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is not applied to decisions not to knock and announce.
Suarez v. State, No. 02A05-1008-PC-508, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 10, 2011)
Defendant should have been provided with a copy of the in-court recording of Spanish interpreter’s guilty plea hearing translations for the defendant, after counsel had detected an irregularity in the translation when listening to the recording.
Nichols v. State, No. 29A04-1008-CR-589, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 29, 2011)
Statute, not the trial court or the DOC, determines length of a sex offender’s sex registry obligations.