Because Indiana Jury Rule 26(a) affords trial courts the option to give final instructions before or after closing arguments, a court can do either without abusing its discretion.
Criminal
Ramirez v. State, No. 21S-CR-373, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 27, 2022).
The Indiana Trial Rules do not require the requesting party to state a specific need for copies. Instead, the requesting party need only describe the item “with reasonable particularity” and “specify a reasonable time, place, and manner” for copying the item. To the extent a local rule conflicts with said mandate, the local rule is void. Moreover, when a defendant moves for a continuance not required by statute, the trial court must evaluate and compare the parties’ diverse interests that would be impacted by altering the schedule.
Davis v. State, No. 21A-CR-2089, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2022).
Although Indiana Rule of Evidence 404(b) cases typically involve the issue of whether prior bad acts of the defendant are admissible, Rule 404(b) does not prohibit application to subsequent acts.
Woodward v. State, No. 21A-CR-1229, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2022).
Commission of a prior felony must be proven by more than mere prior conviction records; there must be supporting evidence to identify the defendant as the person named in the records.
Harris v. State, No. 21A-CR-1315, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 21, 2022).
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.