State’s inadvertent failure to preserve audio recordings of victims’ initial field interviews and subsequent follow-up interviews did not violate defendant’s rights; no law requires recording of victim interviews, and police did not intentionally sabotage or destroy the recordings they had attempted to make.
Hall v. State, No. 49S05-1412-CR-728, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 2, 2015).
Trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel discovery, even if in violation of the Sixth Amendment, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Wertz v. State, No. 48A04-1409-CR-427, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 7, 2015).
“GPS device is similar in nature to a computer or cell phone, and that such a device cannot be treated as a ‘container’ that may be searched pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.”
Cox v. State, No. 27A02-1412-CR-599, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 7, 2015).
Amelioration doctrine did not apply to defendant’s sentence because the legislature clearly stated in Ind. Code 1-1-5.5-21(b) that it did not intend the amelioration doctrine to apply.
In re I.J., No. 57A03-1501-AD-28, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 8, 2015).
The trial court erred in denying a possible father’s (third-party) request for genetic testing for a child born to a married couple who placed the newborn for adoption.