A trial court’s failure to ensure that a probationer who admits to a probation violation has received the advisements as required under Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(e) constitutes a fundamental violation of the probationer’s due process rights.
Criminal
Gates v. State, No. 22A-CR-247, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2022).
The intimidation statute is not unconstitutionally vague.
A.W. v. State, No. 22A-JV-150, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2022).
The Indiana Supreme Court reiterated in Wadle, that an offense is factually included when the charging instrument alleges that the means used to commit the crime charged include all of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense. Here, juvenile’s adjudications for possession of a machine gun and dangerous possession of a firearm were factually included and thus, entry of judgment on both counts was a violation of double jeopardy.
Awbrey v. State, No. 21A-CR-2867, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 6, 2022).
Pursuant to the plain language of Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2, the level of an intoxicant in the defendant’s blood, standing alone, is insufficient to establish impairment.
Armes v. State, No. 21A-CR-2384, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 8, 2022).
The emergency rule promulgated by the Indiana Board of Pharmacy (the Board) purporting to add MDMB to Schedule I, fails to provide adequate information for a person of ordinary intelligence to determine whether he or she is dealing a substance that contains MDMB, and therefore, it is unconstitutionally vague.