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.
Criminal
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.
New v. State, No. 19A-CR-575, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2019).
Defendant’s substantial rights were prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to give the proposed instruction that was a correct statement of law, was based upon the evidence, was not covered by other instructions, and was necessary to enable the jury to fairly consider defendant’s theory or defense.
Watson v. State, No. 19A-CR-49, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2019).
The one-year speedy trial deadline includes cases involving habitual offender adjudications, and after nearly six and two-thirds years of inexplicable delay—with at least one year of delay directly attributable to the State—there was a Criminal Rule 4(C) violation. Defendant should not have been held to answer to the allegations that he is a habitual offender.