A conviction for burglary cannot be sustained if an alleged perpetrator enters a business open to the public during business hours, with intent to commit a felony or theft in it, due to a lack of evidence as to breaking.
Criminal
I.G. v. State, No. 21A-JV-479, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 10, 2021).
The odor of marijuana, by itself, is not enough to establish probable cause to arrest the occupants of a vehicle.
Bunnell v. State, 21S-CR-139, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sep. 2, 2021).
An officer who affirms that they detect the odor of raw marijuana based on their training and experience may establish probable cause without providing further details on their qualifications to recognize said odor.
State v. Barnett, No. 20A-CR-2144, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 25, 2021).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving preclusive effect to the Marion County Probate Court’s 2012 age-change order and the March 7, 2017, order reaffirming same, thus preventing the State from relitigating the alleged victim’s age; and the trial court did not err in dismissing multiple counts against the defendants because the charges were filed outside of the five-year statute of limitations period.
Stott v. State, 20A-CR-1924, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2021).
To establish admissibility based on the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, witnesses’ statements to police officers in a recording must demonstrate, among other things, contemporaneity between the events perceived and the declarations about those events. Moreover, it is the proponent’s burden to establish the strong showing of authenticity and competency for the admissibility of photographs used as substantive evidence under the silent-witness theory.