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.
Criminal
Jones v. State, No. 27A02-1002-CR-168, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 7, 2010)
When the two convictions were based on controlled buys using the same informant and quantity of drugs and were arranged to occur at the same place and took place only two weeks apart, consecutive sentences were inappropriate.
Everling v. State, No. 48S05-0911-CR-506, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., July 8, 2010)
Judge’s overall conduct during trial demonstrated reversible bias.
Reinhart v. State, No. 57A03-1002-CR-84, __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 9, 2010)
When motorist calmly complied with officer’s commands, although motorist had yelled at officer earlier, officer’s pointing firearm at and handcuffing of motorist transformed a permissible investigative stop into an illegal arrest without probable cause.
Halferty v. State, No. 20A03-0910-CR-475, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 9, 2010)
Testimony that cooking ephedrine/pseudoephedrine would “usually” and “generally” reduce it to methamphetamine at a 70 percent ratio but that ratio could have been as low as 50 percent was insufficient to prove defendant was manufacturing more than three grams of methamphetamine so as to support an A felony conviction.