When a party requests a hearing on possible juror bias or misconduct, after voir dire and selection but before the jury is sworn, a trial court should hold such a hearing if the party demonstrates some relevant basis for that bias or misconduct.
Paquette v. State, No. 19S-CR-502, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 11, 2019).
The proper sentence to avoid double jeopardy violation, where defendant caused three deaths while operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs and fleeing police, was guilt for one count of Level 3 felony resisting law enforcement causing death; two counts of Level 4 felony operating causing death; and one count of Level 6 felony operating causing serious bodily injury.
Archer v. State, No. 18A-PC-2681, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 12, 2019).
The presence of even one biased juror on the jury is a structural error requiring a new trial, and appellate counsel had an obligation to review the entire record of the trial proceedings, including the voir dire transcript.
Pulido v. State, No. 19A-CR-834, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 12, 2019).
It is not a crime to simply be intoxicated in public, and to sustain a public intoxication conviction based on personal endangerment, the state must show proof beyond a reasonable doubt and not by merely speculating that the person may be in some future danger.
State v. Fahringer, No. 18A-CR-2985, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 12, 2019).
The trial court’s certification of its suppression order for interlocutory appeal was an abuse of its discretion because the State’s request for certification was untimely under App. R. 14(B)(1)(a).