A second or subsequent pat down search must by supported by specific and articulable facts that the suspect is armed and dangerous or incident to arrest.
Criminal
Reynolds v. State, No. 19A-CR-880, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 14, 2020).
Admission of a recorded forensic interview is prohibited if the child victim provides live trial testimony unless the Rules of Evidence provide an independent basis for admission. The forensic interviewer is also permitted to testify provided that: 1) the interview occurred soon after initial disclosure; (2) the interview was not lengthy; (3) the interviewer did not ask leading questions, and the victim’s parents were not participants; and (4) the interview occurred before a sexual assault examination.
Miske, Jr. v. State, No. 19A-PC-1174, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2020).
Failure to raise a common law double jeopardy claim, when apparent from the record that a defendant’s conviction and punishment for an enhancement of a crime was imposed for the very same behavior or harm as another crime for which the defendant has been convicted and punished, constitutes ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, even if appellate counsel raised a different double jeopardy issue on appeal.
B.B. v. State, No. 19A-JV-1803, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2020).
A threat expressed to an individual, even if that individual is not the intended victim, to interfere with the occupancy of a school (building), is sufficient to sustain an adjudication for an act that would be considered intimidation if committed by an adult.
Smith v. State, No. 19A-CR-1515, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2020).
The subject matter of post-assault sexual history must be introduced by the State at trial for the exception to the rape shield law permitting admissibility to apply. Moreover, while a defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense, that defense must still comply with the Indiana Rules of Evidence.