Defendant’s arranging to buy and pay for cocaine for himself was not “dealing.”
Criminal
Temperly v. State, No. 49A02-1001-CR-52, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 9, 2010)
Temperly v. State (Ind. Ct. App., Kirsch, J.)-Evidence that defendant’s BAC was .244 and that he had been involved without fault in a fatal accident did not, without more, prove he endangered another person so as to be guilty of Class A misdemeanor OWI.
Trotter v. State, No. 29A02-0910-CR-974, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 10, 2010)
Fourth Amendment “attenuation of taint” doctrine has no application under the Indiana Constitution; in any event, doctrine would not apply to these facts.
Wilkerson v. State, No. 26A01-0909-CR-457, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 14, 2010)
Officers could permissibly stop a vehicle with windows so tinted the driver cannot be easily identified. A Pirtle warning is not required for pat-down searches for weapons.
Girdler v. State, No. 73A01-1001-CR-14, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2010)
Concludes, contrary to other Court of Appeals cases, that a defendant may be convicted of auto theft even if he was not the original thief; also concludes the rule of “exclusive possession of stolen property since the time of the original theft only applies where direct evidence of a defendant’s knowledge of the property’s stolen character is lacking and such knowledge must be proven circumstantially.”