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.”
Criminal
Adcock v. State, No. 47A01-0912-CR-591, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 27, 2010)
Prosecutor’s analogy to jig saw missing two pieces to demonstrate the difference between beyond all reasonable doubt and beyond a reasonable doubt did not require reversal.
Fisher v. State, No. 10A01-1001-CR-21, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 30, 2010)
Defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated when he diligently attempted to be tried on Indiana charges while in federal custody for five years but State did not seek to have him tried under a policy not to return persons in another jurisdiction’s custody until their sentences were served in that jurisdiction.
Walker v. State, No. 71A03-1003-CR-115, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 17, 2010)
“Continuing crime doctrine” did not apply to distinct crimes.
Curtis v. State, No. 49A02-0911-CR-1106, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 5, 2010)
Where it is undisputed that defendant will never recover from his mental illness and will never become competent to stand trial, it was a violation of due process to deny his motion to dismiss the criminal charges pending against him.