Because the jury’s only role under the current habitual-offender statute is to determine whether the defendant has the requisite prior convictions, the defendant is not entitled to testify about the circumstances surrounding his prior convictions.
Criminal
State v. Fox, No. 21A-CR-2445, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 6, 2022).
A home detention contract with broad language stating that a defendant waives “rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution, regarding search and seizure of your person or effects” unambiguously informs a defendant that he is waiving his right against search and seizure absent any degree of suspicion.
Bunch v. State, No. 21A-CR-2278, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 6, 2022).
The process for having a federal right to possess firearms restored following a conviction of a crime of domestic violence is tied to the state procedure for having said right restore; that procedure in Indiana is conducted pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-47-4-7.
Yeary v. State, No. 21A-CR-1080, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 7, 2022).
The plain language of the drug-induced homicide statute, Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.5, requires the State to prove the defendant’s conduct is both the proximate cause and the actual cause of the victim’s death, and while the jury is expected to rely on its collective common sense and knowledge acquired through everyday experiences, the trial court has a duty to define for the jury words of a technical or legal meaning normally not understood by jurors unversed in the law.
Fedij v. State, No. 21A-CR-1481, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 11, 2022).
Unlike the labels on regulated pharmaceuticals, or warnings on products containing dangerous ingredients, nothing in the writing or symbols of cannabis-based products provide a detailed analysis of the products’ chemical compositions, their directions for use, or specific warnings from their misuse. Therefore, the market reports exception to the hearsay rule (Evidence Rule 803(17)) does not appeal to the writing or symbols on a cannabis-based package.