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.
Criminal
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.
Cozmanoff v. State, No. 19A-CR-1426, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 22, 2019).
Regardless of whether the conviction was entered prior to 2015, an operator of a vehicle convicted of reckless homicide is not eligible for specialized driving privileges.
Watson v. State, No. 18A-CR-1099, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 22, 2019).
Evidence of internet searches on sexual topics are not admissible under Indiana Rule of Evidence 412 when the defense is unable to establish that the victim had exclusive control of the device upon which the searches were conducted.
Dilley v. State, No. 19A-CR-173, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 23, 2019).
A trial court errs when it grants the State’s motion for continuance, based the unavailability of laboratory testing results, under Criminal Rule 4(D), where the State fails to establish diligence.