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.
Criminal
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.
Wisdom v. State, 20A-CR-931, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2020).
To authenticate under Evidence Rule 901, social-media evidence turns on whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding it is what the claimant purports it to be. And while the source of the evidence may sometimes be needed, authentication depends on context.
Bradbury v. State, 20A-PC-620, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 23, 2020).
Trial counsel were ineffective when they stipulated to fact of which there was a serious evidentiary dispute, and when they failed to seek a lesser-included instruction that would have been available absent the stipulation.