The ability to consent is a unifying theme to the separate situations of proscribed conduct constituting Level 3 felony rape; a defendant should be able to ask the alleged victim questions about their shared sexual history to determine whether there is any basis by which defendant could defend themselves by arguing the alleged were consensual.
Criminal
Henderson v. State, No. 24A-CR-667, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 26, 2024).
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(c)(1) proscribes the application of alternative misdemeanor sentencing (AMS) to a second felony within three years when “the person has committed a prior unrelated felony for which judgment was entered as a conviction of a Class A misdemeanor.” The statute employs past tense, as opposed to prospective, terminology; anticipated AMS for a prior unrelated felony would not bar AMS in a current case.
Coonce v. State, No. 23A-CR-1920, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2024).
Prior unrelated vehicular substance offenses used to support a habitual vehicular substance offender enhancement may be either felony or misdemeanor convictions.
Walker v. State, No. 24A-CR-443, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 19, 2024).
Businesses have a legitimate interest in maintaining a safe environment and preserving order on their premises. However, once a business has entered into an agreement with an individual which grants the individual a contractual interest in its property, the individual may not be found to have committed criminal trespass so long as the individual’s contractual interest remains.
Grimes v. State, No. 24S-CR-217, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 26, 2024).
When a trial court postpones a criminal trial due to congestion and the defendant objects, a reviewing court applies a burden-shifting test. The test first gives deference to the trial court’s initial finding of congestion. But if the defendant presents a prima facie case that the court’s congestion finding is inaccurate, the burden shifts to the trial court to explain why its calendar required continuing the trial. If the court fails to meet its burden, the defendant is entitled to have the State’s claim against him dismissed or discharged.