Conduct by a defendant designed to procure a witness’s absence from trial is sufficient, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence, to forfeit his/her right to confrontation. In the context of obstruction of justice, coercion requires only that the defendant indicate, explicitly or implicitly, a consequence – not a particular kind of consequence, such as a positive or negative one.
Criminal
F.H. v. State, No. 19A-JV-1716, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 22, 2020).
A juvenile is not subject to a determinate term in the DOC absent a specific determination by the juvenile court that statutory criteria have been satisfied.
C.J. v. State, No. 19A-JV-255, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 23, 2020).
Juvenile’s waiver of his Miranda rights was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because of his demonstrated lack of maturity, the fact that he was not advised of the crime and possible consequences, and his minimal consultation with a parent.
George v. State, No. 18A-CR-2300, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 23, 2020).
Convicting defendant of both Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license violates Indiana’s double jeopardy prohibition.
Peele v. State, No. 19A-CR-1775, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 24, 2020).
An individual may either file a petition for removal from the sex offender registry in a separate, civil cause or within a criminal cause under a qualifying court.