While Indiana statutory authority provides that a search warrant shall be executed within ten days of issuance, a delay in executing a warrant is not unreasonable unless, at the time it is executed, probable cause no longer exists and the defendant demonstrates legal prejudice because of the delay.
Criminal
Taylor v. State, No. 25S-CR-349, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 17, 2025).
A defendant must have the opportunity to personally question a witness to probe their recollection, test their reliability, expose their bias, and draw out favorable facts through cross-examination. When a trial court denies a defendant this constitutional right, the error requires reversal unless the State proves it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. To determine whether the State met its burden, reviewing courts consider several factors: the significance of the improperly admitted evidence to the State’s case; whether that evidence was merely cumulative; whether it was corroborated or contradicted by other evidence; and the extent of cross-examination or questioning on the improperly admitted evidence.
Elzey v. State, No. 24S-CR-436, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 20, 2025).
The Indiana State Public Defender must represent all indigent individuals who are confined in a penal facility in Indiana or committed to the Department of Correction due to a criminal conviction or delinquency adjudication. However, the Public Defender Statute, I.C. 33-40-1-2, and our post-conviction rules specifically Post-Conviction Rule 1(9)(a), still enable SPD to exercise its discretion in agreeing to representation.
Anderson v. State, No. 25S-CR-294, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 13, 2025).
A sentence is illegal if it is outside the prescribed statutory range or is unconstitutional. An appeal challenging an illegal sentence cannot be waived.
Adkins v. State, No. 25A-PC-438, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2025).
Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(10) limits a court’s authority to resentence a defendant for the same offense after post-conviction relief. It neither curtails the State’s authority to file a new charge based on new evidence nor restricts the sentencing court from applying the proper statutory range to that conviction.