Defendant was entitled to credit for pretrial incarceration in connection with cause numbers dismissed in his plea agreement; the parties and court treated the cases as “related.”
Luke v. State, No. 15A01-1409-CR-407, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 24, 2016).
Conviction for stalking four victims, based on conduct spanning January 2012 to February 2014, violated actual-evidence double jeopardy principles when defendant had been convicted a month earlier for invasion of privacy committed against three of the same victims for conduct spanning three days in January 2014. The State presented substantial evidence of the three-day course of conduct in the subsequent trial; and both cases alleged a violation of the same previously issued no-contact order.
Hill v. State, No. 20A03-1507-CR-907, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 25, 2016).
Trial court was within its discretion to exclude alleged domestic-battery victim who had recanted her accusation as a defense witness. Error was invited by defendant’s insistence on calling witness, despite State’s and court’s repeated cautions.
Tyson v. State, No. 45S03-1509-CR-528, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Feb. 25, 2016).
Statute requiring “a person who is required to register as a sex or violent offender in any jurisdiction” to likewise register in Indiana did not violate Indiana ex post facto clause as applied to Texas offender who moved to Indiana after 2006 enactment of that statute. Texas law already required offender to register; maintaining that status in Indiana was not punitive under the intent-effects test.
State v. Zerbe, No. 49S05-1509-MI-529, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Feb. 25, 2016).
Michigan sex offender was not distinguishable from offender in Tyson v. State, even though Michigan enacted its registration requirement two years after defendant’s offense. Relevant question was not whether Michigan registration requirement was ex post facto law, but only that the requirement existed at the time offender moved to Indiana.