Evidence of controlled buy of cocaine from defendant, which was relied on to obtain the search warrant which produced the cocaine and marijuana on which charges were based, was “intrinsic” to the charged crimes and accordingly not barred by Evidence Rule 404(b).
In re S.E., No. 29A02-1312-JT-1064, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2014).
Trial court did not violate defendant’s due-process rights by requiring her to testify by signing to an interpreter.
Erkins v. State, No. 58S01-1309-CR-586, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 22, 2014).
When charge was conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, the State was not required to prove there was actual serious bodily injury; amendment changing the allegation of the particular conspirator who committed the overt act required for conspiracy was of form only and was properly allowed in this case.
Perry v. State, No. 39A01-1312-CR-517, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 22, 2014.)
Credit time for being in a drug court program with electronic monitoring is not required, but can be awarded in the court’s discretion.
Dixon v. State, No. 84A01-1307-CR-339, __ N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., July 22, 2014).
Terry pat-down search could not be conducted under the facts of the case.