Indiana Constitution’s ex post facto clause precludes application of a sex offender registration requirement enacted after the offense was committed.
Criminal
Outlaw v. State, No. 49A02-0904-CR-340, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2009)
Evidence that defendant was intoxicated, without more, does not suffice to prove the “endangerment” element of A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated.
Vanderlinden v. State, No. 49A02-0905-CR-417, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2009)
Evidence defendant was speeding sufficed to prove the “endangerment” element of Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated.
Robinson v. State, No. 20A04-0909-CR-530, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 29, 2009)
Sheriff’s failure to transport defendant from correctional facility for initial hearing did not stop the running of the 70 day period for defendant’s Criminal Rule 4(B) speedy trial.
Herron v. State, No. 55A05-0906-CV-341, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 29, 2009)
Person required to register as Arizona sex offender was consequently required to register under Indiana law. As Arizona lifetime registration law was in effect when Arizona offense was committed, Indiana lifetime registration is not an ex post facto violation.