Reviews caselaw on resisting law enforcement offense and affirms conviction when defendant “refused repeated orders to lay down on the ground and advanced aggressively, with his fists clenched, to within a few feet of the police officer issuing the orders before ultimately being tased.”
Speers v. State, No. 55S01-1312-CR-841, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Dec. 19, 2013).
“[A] laboratory technician involved in the chain of custody of DNA evidence” need not “testify at trial in order to satisfy the demands of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.”
Halliburton v. State, No. 20S00-1206-LW-560, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Dec. 19, 2013).
Limiting instruction erroneously advised the jury that the court had ruled the evidence to be relevant and admissible because the probative value outweighed any prejudice, but the error was not fundamental.
Weinberger v. Barnes, No. 45A04-1107-CT-369, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2013).
Ind. Code § 34-51-3-6, the punitive damages statute, does not give the state power to intervene in otherwise private litigation, at any stage in the proceedings.
Carpenter v. State, No. 77A01-1306-CR-293, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 6 ,2013).
Evidence for revocation of probation was insufficient when it did not provide any basis to conclude phenobarbital was taken after period of probation had begun.