Post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying some requests for subpoenas, despite not issuing “a finding on the record” under P-C.R. 1(9)(b); subpoenas either were not specific enough to establish proposed witnesses’ relevance, or relevance was only to matters available at trial or on direct appeal.
Hurst v. Florida, No. 14-7505, ___ U.S. ___ (Jan. 12, 2016).
Florida’s death-penalty statutory scheme, under which judge must find aggravating circumstance justifying death and jury’s sentencing recommendation of death or life without parole is only advisory, violates Sixth Amendment jury right.
Beasley v. State, No. 49S02-1601-CR-20, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Jan. 14, 2016).
Trial court acted within its discretion under Evid. R. 804(b)(3) to admit murder victim’s hearsay statement that he shot at defendant the night before as a “statement against interest”; statement was unambiguous and had a great “tendency … to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability,” even though declarant believed he had acted in self-defense.
In re Guardianship of Stant, No. 07A01-1504-GU-139, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2016).
Ind. Code § 30-5-6-4, setting forth who may make a request and receive an accounting from an attorney in fact, applies to all power of attorneys (not just those created after the amendment of the statute on July 1, 2012).
Woods v. State, No. 20A03-1506-PC-688, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2015).
Post-conviction court erred in finding that defendant received effective assistance of trial counsel; there was no serious dispute that counsel (now deceased) had failed prior to trial to communicate a guilty-plea offer that would have reduced defendant’s sentence exposure to about half of what he actually received.