(1) Because State’s request to amend the charging information the day before trial was made under the amended version of Ind. Code § 35-34-1-5, Defendant’s failure to request a continuance to prepare his defense resulted in a waiver of the issue for appellate review; (2) although trial court should have redacted unrelated character evidence from Defendant’s BMV record, Defendant failed to prove that the admission of the evidence made a fair trial impossible.
Criminal
D.H. v. State, No. 49A05-1002-JV-92, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 11, 2010)
Student who threw a punch at another student but instead hit his teacher committed the equivalent of battery against his teacher under the doctrine of transferred intent.
Calvert v. State, No. 40A05-0911-CR-659, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 27, 2010)
Evidence proved no more than defendant’s preparation to commit a crime, which was not sufficient to prove the “substantial step” required for an attempt conviction. Defendant’s conviction of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon was based on proof he possessed the same sawed-off shotgun relied on to convict him of possession of a sawed-off shotgun, so that sawed-off shotgun conviction was prohibited under Indiana double jeopardy law.
Lewis v. State, No. 49A02-0908-CR-736, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 27, 2010)
Plurality opinion holds that officer’s incursions into auto passenger compartment, after driver had been arrested outside the vehicle, violated 4th Amendment and Indiana Constitution Art. I Sec. 11.
Wilkins v. State, No. 02A03-0910-CR-451, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 27, 2010)
When factors which would justify a “no-knock” residential search were not “exigent,” but rather were known when the search warrant was applied for but not presented to the judge to have judicial authority for a “no-knock” entry, and the policy of the law enforcement agency was to routinely leave the “no-knock” decision to the police team rather than obtaining approval from an independent authority, suppression of the fruits of the “no-knock” search was appropriate under the Indiana Constitution.