Criminal Rule 4(C) was created to move cases along and not to create a mechanism to avoid trial. A defendant cannot habitually move to reset the preliminary hearing at which the trial date was to be set and then claim that his right to trial within a year was violated.
Criminal
Marshall v. State, No. 64A05-1710-CR-2368, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 20, 2018).
Because the arresting officer could only testify that the defendant’s vehicle “was going over the posted speed limit”, he did not have specific articulable facts to support his initiation of a traffic stop, and therefore it violated defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Durden v. State, No. 18S-CR-329, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 20, 2018).
Even though trial court improperly removed a juror after deliberations had begun, defendant’s convictions were affirmed because he and his defense counsel expressly agreed to the constitutionally-defective procedure as part of a deliberate trial strategy.
Fansler v. State, No. 27S02-1710-CR-672, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 21, 2018).
Ind. Evid. Rule 617 does not require the State to make available at trial electronic recordings of defendant’s incriminating statements made in a motel room because it was not a “place of detention.”
Knutson v. State, No. 12A04-1709-CR-2246, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 31, 2018).
Unlawful possession of a syringe cannot be enhanced to a Level 5 felony based on a prior conviction pursuant to the general offense-level statute (Ind. Code § 16-42-19-27).