(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.
Criminal
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.
Arizona v. Johnson, No. 07-1122, __ U.S. __ (Jan. 26, 2009)
Arizona v. Johnson (U.S., Ginsburg, J.) – During a lawful stop for a traffic infraction, the police may conduct a patdown search of a passenger whom they reasonably suspect to be armed and dangerous.
Redmond v. State, No. 49A02-0808-CR-761, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 28, 2009)
365 day period in which to file a petition to modify sentence without prosecutor’s consent begins to run when sentence is imposed, even when sentence sought to be modified runs consecutive to another.