Under Indiana RICO offense, “continuity” is relevant to proving that the incidents of criminal conduct were “not isolated”; but unlike federal RICO, “continuity” is not itself a discrete element of the offense.
McElfresh v. State, No. 32S01-1511-CR-667, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., March 3, 2016).
Even true statements may be coercive enough to influence a witness and will therefore support conviction for obstruction of justice if they were intended for that purpose.
Myers v. Crouse-Hinds Division of Cooper Industries, Inc., No. 49S00-1502-MI-119, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 2, 2016).
The Indiana Product of Liability Act statute of repose does not apply in cases where there is prolonged exposure to inherently dangerous foreign substances like asbestos.
Purdue v. State, No. 03A01-1508-CR-1154, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 24, 2016).
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.