The post-conviction court abused its discretion in closing evidence without allowing counsel to make an offer of proof and to secure a deposition of a witness who could help prove the defendant had been wrongly convicted of murder.
Criminal
Spencer v. State, No. 18A-CR-2878, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 28, 2019).
The trial court properly declined to give defendant’s proposed jury instruction on force, which emphasized particular factual scenarios minimizing other potentially relevant evidence. Trial courts should use the pattern jury instruction on resisting law enforcement by fleeing at 1 Ind. Pattern Jury Instructions—Criminal 5.3000 (4th ed. 2019).
Barber v. State, No. 19S-CR-329, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 29, 2019).
A person convicted of child molesting is a statutorily defined as a violent criminal and may not file for sentence modification under Ind. Code 35-38-1-17 after the elapse of 365 days from sentencing without the approval of the prosecuting attorney
Kelly v. State, No. 18S-CR-585, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 22, 2019).
Trial court properly allowed the State to present evidence of defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence during trial because defendant opened the door to rebuttal of his defense that he had no knowledge of the drug deal and was an unwitting participant.
Lacey v. State, No. 18A-CR-2623, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 23, 2019).
The imposition of a thirteen-year habitual offender enhancement was improper because the two prior out-of-state Level 3 felony convictions had to be treated as Level 6 felony convictions under the Indiana statute in force at the time (February 16, 2017). The legislature amended the definition of a “Level 6 felony” for purposes of the habitual offender enhancement effective March 8, 2018.