Trial court properly denied the State’s motion to amend the habitual offender charging information because it would prejudice defendant’s substantial rights and because it was not supported by good cause.
Criminal
Martin v. State, No. 19A-CR-183, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 11, 2019).
Defendant was improperly sentenced for a crime – Level 3 Felony robbery – for which he had not been convicted because the State did not allege the use of a deadly weapon as an enhancement of the robbery offense, and the jury was never instructed on that crime.
Battering v. State, No. 18A-CR-2309, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 11, 2019).
The defendant was not entitled to discharge under Criminal Rule 4(C) as trial-court proceedings were “stayed” when the trial court authorized an interlocutory appeal by the State and vacated the upcoming trial date, but did not actually use the word “stay.”
Straw v. State, No. 19A-CR-934, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2019).
Person convicted of voyeurism did not have to register as a sex offender because legislature did not include that offense in its list of crimes requiring registration.
Easler v. State, No. 19S-CR-324, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 20, 2019).
When a party requests a hearing on possible juror bias or misconduct, after voir dire and selection but before the jury is sworn, a trial court should hold such a hearing if the party demonstrates some relevant basis for that bias or misconduct.