When protective order notice was left at subject’s home but the return of service did not indicate that notice was also mailed to last address as required by Trial Rule 4.1, subject’s statement to police and admission at trial that he received the notice in combination with evidence of T.R. 4.1 notice attempt were sufficient to support his invasion of privacy conviction.
Criminal
State v. Tharp, No. 49S02-1005-CR-256, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 16, 2011)
Actual notice of a protective order sufficient for a conviction of invasion of privacy need not come from an agent of the state, but in this case conviction is reversed because the only evidence defendant knew of the protective order was testimony the protected person told him about it and at the same time said the order was no longer valid.
Romo v. State, No. 49S04-1009-CR-499, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 9, 2011)
“[W]ritten English translations of foreign language recordings may be admitted as substantive evidence and . . . the recordings themselves generally should be admitted and played as well.”
Matlock v. State, No. 49A02-1006-CR-609, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 21, 2011)
“[W]here the possibility exists that a defendant accused of OWI may at some point in the future regain competency and be released back into society, which release also may include the defendant driving, the State may pursue an OWI conviction even if the defendant’s incompetency caused he or she to be detained for a period in excess of the maximum possible sentence for OWI.”
Delao v. State, No. 20A05-1003-CR-182, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 10, 2011)
After judge had instructed parties a request would be necessary to have sidebars recorded due to limitations of recording equipment, defense counsel’s failure to request a recorded sidebar conference meant that the record failed to show the particular grounds for his objection to evidence.