Downloading an image to a computer is not “creating a digitized image” under the child exploitation offense; the dissemination of matter harmful to minors offense was unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant’s sending an image of his genitals to a sixteen year old with whom he could legally have consensual sexual relations.
Criminal
Beldon v. State, No. 43A05-0805-CR-302, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 21, 2009)
Fact that physician had a busy schedule, without a showing that she could not have rearranged the schedule or that she was subpoenaed, did not make her “unavailable” such that her videotaped deposition could be admitted without violating the Confrontation Clause.
Whatley v. State, No. 49A02-0809-CR-808, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 21, 2009)
Fact church was used for some secular activities, such as Girl Scouts, did not change it into a “youth program facility” “drug free zone” supporting enhancement of cocaine sentence.
Hardley v. State, No. 49S05-0905-CR-209, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 5, 2009)
[T]he State may challenge the legality of a criminal sentence by appeal without first filing a motion to correct erroneous sentence, and . . . such appeal need not be commenced within thirty days of the sentencing judgment.
Upton v. State, No. 52A02-0812-CR-1112, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 23, 2009)
Application of “credit restricted felon†statute to offense committed before statute’s effective date violated ex post facto prohibition.