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.
Criminal
Abbott v. State, No. 21S-PL-347, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 29, 2022).
David, J. In Indiana, civil forfeiture actions typically proceed under one of two statutes: the general forfeiture statute or the racketeering forfeiture statute. Today, we consider whether the racketeering forfeiture statute permits a court to release, to the defendant, funds seized in a forfeiture action so the defendant can hire counsel in that same action. […]
State v. Pemberton, No. 21A-CR-668, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 31, 2022).
Absent specific exceptions outlined by our legislature in other statutes, acts that would be criminal offenses if committed by adults are defined by Indiana law as delinquent acts when committed by individuals under age eighteen, and Indiana law gives exclusive jurisdiction of delinquency proceedings to juvenile courts.
Conley v. State, No. 21S-PC-256, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 23, 2022).
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.
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.