Compelling defendant to unlock her iPhone, under the threat of contempt and imprisonment, is constitutionally prohibited by the Fifth Amendment because revealing or using the passcode to do so is a testimonial act. The State must describe with reasonable particularity the information it seeks to compel defendant to produce and why.
Criminal
Boggs v. State, No. 18S-CR-430, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 23, 2018).
Proof of the “slightest penetration” of the female sex organ, including penetration of the external genitalia, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for child molestation based on sexual intercourse.
Jackson v. State, No. 18S-CR-00113, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 24, 2018).
Based on the general inquiry from the Coble decision on the habitual offender enhancement statute and the unambiguous language of the criminal gang enhancement statute, a trial court on remand from a reversal of a criminal gang enhancement must resentence the defendant on all the felonies underlying that enhancement.
Crittendon v. State, No. 18A-CR-206, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 8, 2018).
Defendant was properly convicted of possession of heroin, without the introduction of the drug itself, when he admitted using heroin and showed clear signs of a heroin overdose.
Hall v. State, No. 17A-CR-3022, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 1, 2018).
“[W]e need not decide whether there might have been any error in the filing of the petition by the prosecuting attorney instead of the director of community corrections because we hold that any potential error was a procedural, not jurisdictional, error.”