Defendant was sentenced to life without parole. The record contained substantial evidence of both the torture and child-molest aggravators on which the jury could reasonably rely. However, because there was a third unchallenged aggravator, torture and child-molest aggravators notwithstanding, any error would not have altered the jury’s recommendation or the trial court’s decision to impose life without parole
Criminal
Smith v. State, 20A-CR-1014, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 20, 2021).
In a trial in absentia, it is not error for the trial court to inform the jury that defendant was personally notified of the trial date.
Madden v. State, 20A-CR-196, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2021).
Convictions for Level 2 Kidnapping for Ransom and Level 5 Kidnapping, based on one removal, violate double jeopardy. In addition, convictions for both criminal confinement and kidnapping, both enhanced based on a demand for ransom, and are so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction,” violate double jeopardy.
Hackner v. State, 19A-CR-1577, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2021).
A dying victim’s non-verbal identification of the perpetrator, in response to an officer’s question, is a question credibility and not admissibility. The weight to be given identification evidence and any determination of whether it is satisfactory and trustworthy is a function of the trier of facts.
Allen v. State, 20S-XP-506, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 22, 2020).
When faced with a permissive expungement petition, trial court should engage in a two-step process when considering a petition for expungement. First, a court must determine whether the conviction is eligible for expungement under the statute. If the conviction is ineligible, the inquiry ends there. But if the court determines that the conviction is eligible for expungement, it must then collect enough information to determine whether it should grant or deny the petition.