Criminal Rule 4(C)’s one-year limitation does not include the time during which trial proceedings have been stayed pending interlocutory appeal. Appointment of a special prosecutor was not required under an appearance of impropriety standard when circumstances indicated regular prosecutor had no actual conflict.
Criminal
State v. Brown, No. 38A05-0810-CR-573, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 9, 2009)
After officers had completed their response to a complaint about a noisy party and were leaving the site, their demand to see the license of a motorist who was arriving at the party was an unreasonable search under the Indiana Constitution.
McCullough v. State, No. 49S02-0809-CR-508, __ N.E.2d (Ind., Feb. 10, 2009)
(1) in the exercise of the appellate authority to review and revise criminal sentences, a court may decrease or increase the sentence; (2) the State may not by appeal or cross-appeal initiate a challenge to a sentence imposed by a trial court; and (3) if a defendant seeks appellate review and revision of a sentence, the State may respond and urge the imposition of a greater sentence without the necessity of proceeding by cross-appeal.
Oatts v. State, No. 49A02-0805-CR-447, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 20, 2009)
The “sexual innocence inference” is that a young victim’s ability to describe the charged sexual molestation is proof that the molestation occurred; adopts the “compromise position” which admits an unrelated prior instance of sexual experience for the victim if the defendant shows that the prior sexual act occurred and that the prior sexual act was sufficiently similar to the charged sexual act to give the victim the knowledge to imagine the charged conduct.
Lafayette v. State, No. 45A03-0803-CR-118, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 23, 2009)
In plurality opinion, concurring judge and dissenting judge take position that rape defendant puts his intent at issue for purposes of Evidence Rule 404(b) when he asserts sex was consensual; lead opinion takes contrary position.