Trial court erred in granting state’s continuance motion filed thirteen days before the speedy trial date, which was the same day it requested lab test results from the State Police Laboratory.
Criminal
Girten v. State, No. 18A-CR-2252, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 21, 2019).
Defendant’s conviction for strangulation committed while engaging in a rape for which he was also convicted should have been vacated under the actual evidence test on double jeopardy grounds instead of the continuous crime doctrine.
J.S. v. State, No. 19A-CR-733, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 13, 2019).
Where defendant filed a motion for indigent counsel but failed to appear at a hearing to consider that motion, trial court improperly denied his motion and required that he proceed pro se without giving sufficient warning about the perils of self-representation, and by not inquiring as to his indigency.
State v. Serrano, No. 19A-CR-305, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 13, 2019).
Under the new-crime exception to the rule excluding evidence obtained from an illegal warrantless search, if a defendant’s response is itself a new and distinct crime, then evidence of the new crime is admissible notwithstanding the prior illegal search.
State v. Timbs, No. 27S04-1702-MI-70, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 28, 2019).
The Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines places not only an instrumentality limit on use-based in rem fines, but also a proportionality one. Based on the totality of the circumstances, if the punitive value of the forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the underlying offenses and the owner’s culpability for the property’s criminal use, the fine is unconstitutionally excessive.