Evidence raised sufficient inference that purchaser under lease-to-purchase contract never intended to pay, so that proof purchaser took furnishings when he moved out sufficed, with intent inference, to prove crime of theft.
Criminal
Konopasek v. State, No. 25A03-1003-CR-155, __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2010)
“[D]efendant’s acknowledgement he is on probation, without more,” does not “’open the door’ to extensive and potentially-damaging character evidence about the nature of his prior offenses or the length of his prior sentences.”
Neukam v. State, No. 16A01-1002-CR-50, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2010)
Single photo show-up to witness who had already named and identified suspect was not unduly suggestive.
State v. Renzulli, No. 32A04-1003-CR-194, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 4, 2010)
One of three separate opinions in plurality decision would hold State had to corroborate citizen tip with testimony that officers saw no other vehicles besides defendant’s which matched the tipster’s description.
Upshaw v. State, No. 49A02-1003-CR-239, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 22, 2010)
After defendant’s release on recognizance satisfied his initial C.R. 4(B) motion for speedy trial in 70 days, his “renewal” of his motion, after arrest on new charges and the revocation of his release on recognizance due to the new arrest, began a new 70 day period, not a resumption of the original 70 days.