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.
Criminal
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.
Gary v. State, No. 18A-CR-2067, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 9, 2019).
Because some or all of the evidence could be used to prove defendant committed both felony intimidation and attempted murder, the conviction of intimidation is vacated as it violates his right against double jeopardy under the actual evidence test.
Baca v. State, No. 18A-CR-2756, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 30, 2019).
A trial court’s grant of a directed verdict for the defendant under Trial Rule 50 acts as an acquittal on that count and bars the State from amending the charge and a retrial.
Howard v. State, No. 18A-CR-1830, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 30, 2019).
The trial court abused its discretion when it permitted the State to amend the information two business days before the start of the trial as it did not give defendant a reasonable opportunity to prepare for and defend against the new counts.