Multiple convictions based on separate provisions under the child-molesting statute should be analyzed using the double jeopardy test set forth in Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227 (Ind. 2020) as opposed to Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. 2020).
Criminal
Combs v. State, 20S-CR-616, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 3, 2021).
The plain view exception to the warrant requirement may justify the seizure of a vehicle believed to be the fruit, instrumentality, or evidence of a crime provided that police are lawfully in a position from which to view the vehicle, its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and police have a lawful right of access to the vehicle.
Sawyer v. State, 20A-CR-1446, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 19, 2021).
Indiana Code § 35-40-5-11.5, effective March 18, 2020, restricts a defendant’s ability to take the deposition of a child less than sixteen years of age who is the victim or alleged victim of a sex offense. Because the statute is procedural in nature, and because it conflicts with the Indiana Trial Rules, the Indiana Trial Rules govern and the provisions of the statute in conflict are a nullity.
Mosley v. State, 20A-CR-2094, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 21, 2021).
A no-contact order cannot be issued to protect a deceased person and probation cannot be revoked based on violation of that void order.
Wright v. State, 20S-LW-260, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 4, 2021).
When deciding whether a defendant properly waives the right to counsel in capital and LWOP cases, a trial court should frame its waiver inquiry with the state’s heightened reliability interests in mind. That inquiry should focus on whether, and to what extent, the defendant has prior experience with the legal system; the scope of the defendant’s knowledge of criminal law, legal procedures, rules of evidence, and sentencing; and whether and to what extent the defendant can articulate and present any possible defenses, including lesser-included offenses and mitigating evidence.