The trial court properly ordered the forfeiture of defendant’s car because the 2018 amendments to Indiana’s civil-forfeiture scheme were procedural in nature and do not constitute an ex post facto law; defendant failed to establish that the seizure of the car was in any way improper.
Criminal
Kifer v. State, No. 19A-CR-1188, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 4, 2019).
The criminal trespass statute may not be used to permanently and perpetually ban a citizen from a public building.
Hall v. State, No. 19A-CR-203, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 5, 2019).
Conviction for aiding in the dealing of a narcotic drug was reversed because agent’s testimony was too speculative to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she packaged the drug sold.
Risinger v. State, No. 19A-CR-281, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 9, 2019).
Defendant’s statement, “I’m done talking,” was an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent pursuant to Miranda, and the detectives’ continuation of questioning thereafter was a failure to honor that right.
Peele v. State, No. 19A-CR-1160, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 20, 2019).
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.