Evidence the protected person or another layperson told the defendant there was a protective order against him does not suffice to prove the protective order knowledge element in the invasion of privacy offense.
Criminal
Palacios v. State, No. 29A02-0908-CR-750, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 26, 2010)
Daughter’s translation of her mother’s statements to investigating officer were admissible under the present sense impression hearsay exception.
Skinner v. State, No. 55A01-0811-CR-543, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 28, 2010)
Former defense counsel, who had withdrawn when another client, defendant’s jailmate, became a state’s witness, could not be compelled to disclose what he had learned from the prospective witness through the attorney-client relationship, particularly when there were adequate alternative sources of impeachment available to defendant.
State v. Haldeman, No. 55S00-0906-CR-266, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Jan. 15, 2010)
Even though statute requiring preliminary appellate review of wiretap warrant has been repealed, Criminal Rule 25’s requirement of preliminary appellate review of wiretap warrants must be complied with.
Presley v. Georgia, No. 09-5270, __ U.S. __ (Jan. 19, 2010)
Defendant’s Sixth Amendment public trial right requires that jury selection be open to the public.