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.
Tunstall v. Manning, No. 49A04-1711-CT-2572, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 20, 2018).
Trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow Defendant to cross-examine Plaintiff’s expert witness about his disciplinary history with the Medical Licensing Board.
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.
D.M. v. State, No. 49A02-1711-JV-2708, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 8, 2018).
When juvenile defendant’s attorney vigorously argued in favor of placing him on probation and submitted a plan for the juvenile court’s review, the court’s failure to specifically ask juvenile defendant if he wanted to make a statement was not a blatant violation of basic principles, did not pose a potential of substantial harm, and did not deprive him of fundamental due process. However, courts are strongly encouraged to afford juvenile delinquents the opportunity to address the court before final disposition.
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.”