Providing defense with defendant’s inculpatory statement to officer would have been “right,” but the State’s failure to disclose was not a discovery violation, as discovery order did not include an unrecorded oral statement and State has no independent duty to provide defense with inculpatory evidence.
Criminal
Hape v. State, No. 63A01-0804-CR-175, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 31, 2009)
Hape v. State (Ind. Ct. App., Vaidik, J.) – As text messages are intrinsic to the cell phones in which they are stored, messages played by jurors in deliberations on a phone admitted without objection as an exhibit could not be used to impeach the jury’s verdict. Text messages are subject to authentication separate from that offered for the phone they are on.
Vermont v. Brillon, No. 08-88, __ U.S. __ (Mar. 9, 2009)
Under 6th Amendment speedy trial right, the delays in trial attributable to continuances and other extensions sought by appointed defense counsel, many due to defendant’s intransigence, were not chargeable to the State.
Shotts v. State, No. 71A03-0808-CR-400, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 12, 2009)
“Good faith” exception did not save arrest on Alabama arrest warrant which was based on a completely conclusory affidavit; fact arresting Indiana officers never had seen the warrant or affidavit did not alter the result.
Harrison v. State, No. 49A04-0807-CR-423, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2009)
“Defense” to within-1,000-feet-of-park drug crime enhancement that defendant was “briefly” in the zone and no person under 18 was present is a mitigating factor like “sudden heat” which State must rebut if evidence puts it in issue.