The Indiana Trial Rules do not require the requesting party to state a specific need for copies. Instead, the requesting party need only describe the item “with reasonable particularity” and “specify a reasonable time, place, and manner” for copying the item. To the extent a local rule conflicts with said mandate, the local rule is void. Moreover, when a defendant moves for a continuance not required by statute, the trial court must evaluate and compare the parties’ diverse interests that would be impacted by altering the schedule.
Criminal
Davis v. State, No. 21A-CR-2089, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2022).
Although Indiana Rule of Evidence 404(b) cases typically involve the issue of whether prior bad acts of the defendant are admissible, Rule 404(b) does not prohibit application to subsequent acts.
Woodward v. State, No. 21A-CR-1229, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2022).
Commission of a prior felony must be proven by more than mere prior conviction records; there must be supporting evidence to identify the defendant as the person named in the records.
Harris v. State, No. 21A-CR-1315, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 21, 2022).
Because the jury’s only role under the current habitual-offender statute is to determine whether the defendant has the requisite prior convictions, the defendant is not entitled to testify about the circumstances surrounding his prior convictions.
State v. Fox, No. 21A-CR-2445, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 6, 2022).
A home detention contract with broad language stating that a defendant waives “rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution, regarding search and seizure of your person or effects” unambiguously informs a defendant that he is waiving his right against search and seizure absent any degree of suspicion.