Seventeen-year-old petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because of trial counsel’s failure to present evidence of defendant’s age and juvenile brain development.
Criminal
Chapman v. State, No. 21A-CR-421, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 23, 2022).
Ind. Code § 35-49-2-2(1)(matter or performance harmful to minors) does not require explicit depiction of the acts or condition, but it allows for the acts and/or condition to be described or represented in any form. A judge’s preliminary determination of obscenity, or that material is probably harmful to minors under Ind. Code § 35-49-2-4, is not evidence on which the parties can rely at trial or relay to the jury, and the jury should not be made aware of the trial court’s preliminary decision.
Partee v. State, No. 21A-CR-1529, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 17, 2022).
When a defendant is removed from the courtroom for disruptive behavior, a trial court is not required to advise the defendant that he may return to the courtroom if he promises to behave.
State v. Johnson, No. 21A-CR-1726, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 23, 2022).
A prior conviction or acquittal in another jurisdiction bars a subsequent Indiana state prosecution for the “same conduct.” Indiana statutory double jeopardy analysis centers on comparing the conduct alleged in the charging instruments.
Warren v. State, No. 21A-CR-247, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2022).
A trial court may conduct a sentencing hearing at which the defendant appears by video, but only after obtaining a written waiver of his right to be present and the consent of the prosecution.