The State violated Indiana’s Double Jeopardy Clause when it brought two separate charges of dealing in synthetic drugs based solely upon the fact that the packets containing the spice bore different brand names.
Criminal
B.T.E. v. State, No. 36S05-1711-JV-711, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 11, 2018).
The defendant’s planning, solicitations, bomb research, drawings depicting the target classroom, and death note together justify the trial court’s conclusion that his affirmative conduct amounts to a substantial step toward the commission of aggravated battery.
M.D. v. State, No. 18S-CR-488, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 3, 2018).
A person in police custody is not entitled to advisement of rights under Pirtle prior to police obtaining consent to conduct a Drug Recognition Exam (“DRE”).
Wright v. State, No. 18S-CR-00166, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 4, 2018).
The trial court properly admitted defendant’s statements to police after an illegal search as the Court grafted the attenuation doctrine onto our Article 1, Section 11 jurisprudence as a natural limit to the exclusionary rule.
Kaushal v. State, No. 49A04-1612-CR-2862, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 4, 2018).
In order to establish prejudice by counsel’s deficient performance resulting in a guilty plea, a defendant must substantiate his claim with contemporaneous evidence and not rely merely on post hoc claims that he would not have pled guilty had he been better advised.