The evaluation of whether the continuous crime doctrine applies is distinct from the question of whether the continuous crime doctrine has been violated.
Criminal
Solomon v. State, No. 18A-CR-2041, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 31, 2019).
Defendant does not have a constitutional right to possess marijuana and Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11 does not violate Article 1, Section 1, of the Indiana Constitution as applied to him.
Keene v. State, No. 18A-XP-228, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 23, 2019).
Expungement petitioners do not have the right to cross-examine victims who provide victim statements.
Dunham v. State, No. 18A-IF-1442, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 15, 2019).
Equipment that had just been used to perform farm drainage work and was being transported back to the office was exempt from the weight limit for heavy equipment on state highways.
Tuell v. State, No. 18A-CR-1186, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 15, 2019).
The current version of the habitual offender statute allows a court to use that enhancement to a conviction of operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture for life even though that is a progressive penalty.