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.
Criminal
Hancz-Barron v. State, No. 22S-LW-310, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 26, 2024).
To recommend LWOP, the jury must (1) find the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one statutory aggravator exists, (2) provide a special verdict form for each aggravating circumstance alleged, and (3) find that any mitigating circumstances that exist are outweighed by the aggravating circumstance or circumstances. If those three steps are satisfied and the jury recommends LWOP, the court shall sentence the defendant accordingly. Moreover, depending on the circumstances of the crime(s), consecutive life sentences for each murder victim does not render the sentence disproportionate.
Feeman v. State, No. 23A-CR-2503, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 24, 2024).
When a defendant is charged with a crime against another person, the victim’s identity is a material element of the offense that the State must specifically allege in the charging information and then prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Anderson v. State, No. 24A-CR-152, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 24, 2024).
The affirmative defense of human trafficking does not negate any elements of a prostitution charge; rather, it operates by entirely excusing the culpability for engaging in prostitution. Accordingly, a defendant may properly be assigned the burden to prove the defense by a preponderance of evidence.
Tyree v. State, No. 23A-CR-2153, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 14, 2024).
Ind. Code 35-38-4-2(a)(5), which permits the State to appeal “from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence, if the ultimate effect of the order is to preclude further prosecution of one (1) or more counts of an information or indictment,” focuses on the effect of the trial court’s ruling: whether the ruling on the defendant’s motion prevents the State from presenting evidence necessary to prove its case.