Defendant’s trial objection on hearsay and foundational grounds sufficed to preserve the Confrontation Clause argument he wished to raise on appeal.
Criminal
Miller v. State, No. 09A02-0812-CR-1133, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2009)
Reverses for “demonstrative” use of video in final argument, when video was not in evidence and would have probably been inadmissible, was prejudicial, and pertained only to an undisputed issue.
Neff v. State, No. 29A02-0904-CR-332, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2009)
Venue for child solicitation crime was in county in which the electronic solicitations occurred, not the county where defendant and “child” were to meet; reversal for improper venue is not an acquittal, so defendant may be retried in county of proper venue.
Lovitt v. State, No. 73A05-0904-CR-229, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov., 2009)
Driver’s possession of marijuana in his pocket did not make his vehicle a common nuisance.
Garcia-Torres v. State, No. 64A03-0812-CR-630, __ N.E.2d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2009)
DNA cheek swab may be taken without a warrant based on reasonable suspicion; Pirtle counsel right for a valid consent to search by a person in custody does not apply to consenting to taking of a cheek swab.