State’s evidence did not show officers had a reasonable belief sex offense suspect would destroy DNA evidence on his body, so that there were no exigent circumstances permitting the police to obtain DNA swabs from the suspect without first getting a search warrant.
Otte v. State, No. 84A01-1108-CR-356, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2012).
Rejects argument that expert’s testimony that victims of domestic violence often recant their stories was improper vouching in violation of Evidence Rule 704(b).
Suarez v. State, No. 02A05-1106-PC-325, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2012).
Strength of case against him and magnitude of benefit he received from his plea bargain were primary factors supporting conclusion prisoner would have entered his guilty plea even had defense counsel properly advised him of the potential for deportation.
Thomas v. State, No. 49A02-1109-CR-830, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 9, 2012).
Defense counsel’s restraint in examining witness in a “discovery deposition” did not make the deposition inadmissible at trial when witness refused to testify, since the defense had the opportunity to vigorously examine the witness but chose not to do so.
Wilson v. State, No. 79A05-1107-CR-350, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May, 9, 2012).
By fleeing from his automobile at the approach of the police the driver abandoned the vehicle for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, so that he could not object to a search of the vehicle.