Admission of DNA test results without testimony of technician who performed DNA test procedures but with testimony of lab supervisor who reviewed the specific results and of expert who prepared paternity analysis satisfied defendant’s federal Crawford Confrontation Clause right.
Criminal
Slone v. State, No. 57A03-0904-CR-162, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 9, 2009)
Evidence that defendant bought two twenty-count packages of pseudoephedrine within one week during cold season was insufficient to prove defendant knowingly purchased drugs containing more than three grams of ephedrine within one week.
Peoples v. State, No. 79A02-0812-CR-1141, __ N.E.2d __ (Inc. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2009)
Habitual offender enhancement of a drug dealing offense requires that only one prior have also been a dealing offense, as the offense being sentenced for counts as one of the “two or more unrelated dealing convictions.”
Mork v. State, No. 49A02-0901-CR-26, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2009)
Defendant was no longer entitled to Criminal Rule 4(B) trial within 70 days when court released him on his own recognizance, while he was imprisoned in Department of Corrections serving a sentence on an unrelated offense.
Gerber v. State, No. 02A03-0902-CR-73, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2009)
Gerber v. State (Ind. Ct. App., May, J.) – Expungement statute does not require petitioner to wait until limitations period for dismissed charge has run, and trial judge erred in summarily dismissing expungement petition on that basis; on remand, prosecutor is not authorized to participate due to failure to have filed a notice of opposition.