Former statutory provision that victim’s statement “shall” be considered did not authorize court to refuse expungement when all petition requirements were met.
Ward v. State, No. 49A02-1401-CR-25, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2014).
Statements by belt whipping victim to medical personnel identifying defendant as attacker were not “testimonial,” so that Sixth Amendment Confrontation right did not apply to prevent personnel from testifying about victim’s statements.
Littrell v. State, No. 79A02-1401-CR-24, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 21, 2014).
When defendant had moved for a trial within seventy days pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B), the ninety day extension authorized by Criminal Rule 4(D) for unavailable state’s evidence ran from the end of the seventy day period, not from the earlier date when the trial court granted the extension.
Gonzalez v. Evans, No. 29A02-1311-DR-984. , __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 19, 2014).
Trial Rule 34(C)(3) permits non-parties to recover attorney fees associated with complying with a subpoena or other discovery request, but that refusing to comply with a discovery request solely on the basis that the parties cannot agree on an appropriate amount to pay does not constitute reasonable resistance to a discovery request.
Gomillia v. State, No. 49S02-1408-CR-521, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 12, 2014).
Affirms “this basic premise” – “[w]here a trial court’s reason for imposing a sentence greater than the advisory sentence includes material elements of the offense, absent something unique about the circumstances that would justify deviating from the advisory sentence, that reason is ‘improper as a matter of law.’”