Trial court retained subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve defendant’s constitutional claim against the Department of Correction requiring him to register as a sex offender.
Seo v. State, No. 29A05-1710-CR-2466, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 21, 2018).
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.
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.
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.