Presence of defendant’s DNA on an object at the crime scene, standing alone, was insufficient to prove he committed the offense.
Guzman v. State, No. 54A01-1209-CR-409, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 15, 2013).
When defendant pled guilty to reckless homicide based on death of the driver of the vehicle defendant crashed into, the deceased driver’s passenger was a “victim” for whom trial court properly ordered restitution payment of medical expenses.
Missouri v. McNeely, No. 11–1425, __U.S. __ (April 17, 2013).
Rejects argument that “the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases,” and holds instead “that exigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.”
Reid v. State, No. 89A01-1208-PC-377, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 8, 2013).
There is no Due Process right to access lost or destroyed evidence, here DNA evidence, during post-conviction proceedings.
Martin v. State, No. 73A01-1207-CR-300, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 8, 2013).
Trial delays caused by toxicology witness’s repeated failures to appear for defense deposition were properly counted against the State in computing the Criminal Rule 4(C) one-year period.