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.
Criminal
Williams v. State, No. 18A02-0911-CR-1092, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 16, 2010)
When two controlled substance possession counts alleged possession of different commercial drugs, Vicodin and Anexsia, when each drug contained the same controlled substance, dihydrocodeinon, there could be only one conviction of possession of a controlled substance.
Donald v. State, No. 23A04-0912-CR-685, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 22, 2010)
Due Process requires that a probationer be competent at his probation revocation hearing.
Edwards v. State, No. 49A02-0911-CR-1093, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 13, 2010)
Witnesses who testify that the defendant was not present at the scene, as opposed to affirmatively testifying he was at a different place, are not alibi witnesses for whom an alibi notice is required.
In re Subpoena to Crisis Connection, Inc., No. 19A05-0910-CR-602, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 15, 2010)
Victim-advocate privilege may be limited by defendant’s constitutional rights, with a three-step test (particularity, relevance, no “paramount interest”) to be met by the defense before there will be an in camera review to determine what victim-advocate communications are to be disclosed.