When a defendant is charged with a crime against another person, the victim’s identity is a material element of the offense that the State must specifically allege in the charging information and then prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Criminal
Anderson v. State, No. 24A-CR-152, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 24, 2024).
The affirmative defense of human trafficking does not negate any elements of a prostitution charge; rather, it operates by entirely excusing the culpability for engaging in prostitution. Accordingly, a defendant may properly be assigned the burden to prove the defense by a preponderance of evidence.
Tyree v. State, No. 23A-CR-2153, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 14, 2024).
Ind. Code 35-38-4-2(a)(5), which permits the State to appeal “from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence, if the ultimate effect of the order is to preclude further prosecution of one (1) or more counts of an information or indictment,” focuses on the effect of the trial court’s ruling: whether the ruling on the defendant’s motion prevents the State from presenting evidence necessary to prove its case.
Brackenridge v. State, No. 23A-CR-2496, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 29, 2024).
To be classified as a serious violent felon, a defendant must have been convicted of a statutory listed felony. If a defendant’s qualifying felony conviction is reduced to a misdemeanor by virtue of the AMS statute, a defendant would no longer qualify as a serious violent felon.
Brown v. State, No. 23A-CR-330, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 10, 2024).
A twenty-one-year-old falls into the jurisdictional gap our Indiana Supreme Court identified in D.P. and Neukam. While statutes that became effective on July 1, 2023, cured this jurisdictional gap, retroactive application of these statutes violate a defendant’s right under the United States Constitution to be free of ex post facto laws.