The Indiana Supreme Court explicitly established that, beginning on January 1, 2020, “the court should utilize the results of an evidence-based risk assessment approved by the Indiana Office of Court Services, and such other information as the court finds relevant.” Crim. R. 26(B). This requirement cannot be circumvented by simply choosing not to order the preparation of an evidence-based risk assessment.
Criminal
West v. State, No. 21A-CR-404, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2021).
A single computer can qualify as a “computer system” for purposes of Ind. Code § 35-43-2-3, the computer trespass statute.
Bradbury v. State, No. 21S-PC-441, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 1, 2021).
Trial counsel was not ineffective for stipulating that defendant’s alleged accomplice, was convicted of murder because the stipulation did not relieve the State of the burden to prove defendant’s intent. Trial counsel pursued a reasonable all-or-nothing strategy when he chose not to seek a lesser-included instruction on reckless homicide.
Paul v. State, 21A-CR-166, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 21, 2021).
When a person has been simultaneously confined in connection with multiple causes and the court must impose consecutive sentences across those causes, Indiana law requires the trial court to (1) calculate credit time at the rate associated with the first sentence in the sequence of sentences and (2) allocate the time to that first sentence.
Wells v. State, 21A-CR-612, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 22, 2021).
Exclusion from trial for failing a drug test is improper. In such instances, a trial court should apply, and exhaust, lesser contempt penalties, before imposing the extreme sanction of the deprivation of fundamental rights.