When faced with a permissive expungement petition, trial court should engage in a two-step process when considering a petition for expungement. First, a court must determine whether the conviction is eligible for expungement under the statute. If the conviction is ineligible, the inquiry ends there. But if the court determines that the conviction is eligible for expungement, it must then collect enough information to determine whether it should grant or deny the petition.
Wisdom v. State, 20A-CR-931, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2020).
To authenticate under Evidence Rule 901, social-media evidence turns on whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding it is what the claimant purports it to be. And while the source of the evidence may sometimes be needed, authentication depends on context.
Bradbury v. State, 20A-PC-620, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 23, 2020).
Trial counsel were ineffective when they stipulated to fact of which there was a serious evidentiary dispute, and when they failed to seek a lesser-included instruction that would have been available absent the stipulation.
Bunnell v. State, 20A-CR-981, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2020).
When probable cause for a search warrant is premised solely on law enforcement’s detection of the odor of raw marijuana, the assertion must be based on more than personal belief: the affiant–officer must provide some information about the detecting officers’ relevant “training” or “experience” that led to the ultimate conclusion.
Campbell v. State, 19A-CR-2414, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 21, 2020).
To file a belated habitual offender charge, the State must affirmatively demonstrate good cause.