Defense attack on technical details of DNA testing went to the weight, not admissibility, of DNA identification evidence.
Criminal
Morgan v. State, No. 49A04-1001-CR-43, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 13, 2010)
“[A] stipulation may be presented to the jury in the form of a preliminary instruction.”
Hopper v. State, No. 13S01-1007-PC-399, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 29, 2010)
A defendant seeking to waive counsel and proceed pro se should not only be advised of the dangers of going to trial without a lawyer, as required by Faretta v. California, but should also “be informed that an attorney is usually more experienced in plea negotiations and better able to identify and evaluate any potential defenses and evidentiary or procedural problems in the prosecution’s case.”
Baugh v. State, No. 18S04-1007-CR-398, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 29, 2010)
Defendant could not complain that judge erred by determining sexually violent predator status without expert testimony required by statute, since defense counsel invited the error by stating judge would make the determination based on the “doctors’ reports.”
Carr v. State, No. 25S04-1004-CR-219, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 29, 2010)
For purposes of Criminal Rule 4 analysis, “[e]mploying the rhetoric of ‘delay chargeable to the State’ should be avoided.” Detective’s practice of congenially agreeing defendant had a right to the Miranda counsel he asked for and then continuing the interrogation violated the Edwards rule that interrogation must immediately cease after a counsel demand.