The “trial court abused its discretion when it allowed a police detective to testify as a skilled witness that the denominations of money found on the defendant were indicative of drug dealing.”
Criminal
Kentucky v. King, No. 09–1272, __ U.S. __ (May 16, 2011)
Exigent circumstances exception permitting warrantless search of a home when police reasonably believe criminal evidence is being destroyed within applies even though the police’s lawful knock and announce at the house door is what prompts the inhabitants to destroy the evidence.
Coleman v. State, No. 20S03-1008-CR-458, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 18, 2011)
Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy clause does not preclude State “from retrying a defendant where in the first trial the jury acquitted the defendant of murder with respect to one victim but failed to return a verdict on a charge of attempted murder with respect to another victim.”
Konopasek v. State, No. 25S03-1012-CR-669, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 5, 2011)
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the fact the defendant was on probation for methamphetamine offenses and faced significant jail time if probation was revoked.
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.