Fourth Amendment “attenuation of taint” doctrine has no application under the Indiana Constitution; in any event, doctrine would not apply to these facts.
Criminal
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.”
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.