Policeman’s testimony that defendant had not called him, after the officer left his card on defendant’s door with a note asking defendant to call, did not violate defendant’s Fifth Amendment right.
Criminal
Cox v. State, No. 79A04-0912-CR-741, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2010)
When child took the stand and testified he knew the difference between telling the truth and a lie and was subject to cross-examination but otherwise provided no testimony about the alleged molesting, and when there had been no testimony from mental health experts that testifying in court would traumatize the child, it was reversible error to admit videotape of child’s statement to a prosecutor’s interviewer about the alleged crimes.
Kistler v. State, No. 35A04-1004-PC-245, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 15, 2010)
Fact that maximum potential sentence of 88 years included 30 years for an invalid habitual offender allegation, which defense counsel failed to observe, did not entitle defendant to relief from his bargained sentence of 28 years, as defendant failed to show that a reasonable defendant would have refused to plead guilty had he known the correct maximum was 58 years.
Reeves v. State, No. 77A04-1005-CR-292, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 16, 2010)
Use of the crime concealment exception to the statute of limitations requires the State to allege in its charge facts which would establish concealment.
Bunch v. State, No. 49A04-1002-CR-120, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 17, 2010)
Successive confinement of the victim in different places in her home during a burglary/robbery was a single episode of confinement, so that Indiana Double Jeopardy prohibited separate confinement convictions for the confinements in different rooms.