“[U]nder the unusual operative and procedural facts of this case—the actual shooter remaining unidentified, the resulting ambiguity as to whether these Defendants intended to carry out a shooting, the State’s choice to rely on the shooting alone in the charging instruments and at trial, and the trial court’s unambiguous finding of reasonable doubt on that particular theory—we hold Defendants lacked fair notice of the [murder by beating] charge of which they were ultimately convicted, which under these circumstances establishes fundamental error.”
Hines v. State, No. 52Sj05-1408-Cr-563, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 19, 2015).
“Continuous crime” doctrine applies only to situations where a defendant has been charged multiple times with the same offense.
Bell v. State, No. 25S00-1310-LW-713, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 20, 2015).
Affirms admission of defendant’s custodial interrogation statement, based in part on appellate court’s review of the video recording of the statement.
Isom v. State, No. 45S00-0803-DP-125, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 20, 2015).
Murdered person’s family members were not themselves victims of the murders, and accordingly evidence the family members had forgiven the defendant was not mitigation evidence and was properly excluded in the death penalty phase of the trial.
Byers v. Moredock, No. 34A04-1412-CT-560, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 18, 2015).
Property owners have no duty for damage done by tenant’s dog.