When, as in this child molesting case, “evidence is presented of a greater number of separate criminal offenses than the defendant is charged with,” “the State may in its discretion designate a specific act (or acts) on which it relies to prove a particular charge,” but “if the State decides not to so designate, then the jurors should be instructed that in order to convict the defendant they must either unanimously agree that the defendant committed the same act or acts or that the defendant committed all of the acts described by the victim and included within the time period charged.”
In Re Subpoena to Crisis Connection, Inc., No. 19S05-1012-CR-678, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2011)
“[T]he three-step test for the discoverability of information outlined in State v. Cline (In re WTHR-TV) . . . is not reached when information is protected by an unqualified privilege unless a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights would be violated by enforcing the privilege.” Here, defendant had no Due Process or Sixth Amendment right to avoid the statutory victim advocate privilege, which prevented discovery of the records of a nongovernmental counseling agency.
Crawford v. State, No. 49S05-1106-CR-370, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2011)
“[T]he three-step test for the discoverability of information outlined in State v. Cline (In re WTHR-TV)” applies here to non-privileged video taken by a private entity.
Cundiff v. State, No. 31A05-1008-CR-607, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2011)
Defendant incarcerated on other charges but released on recognizance on the charges at issue was not eligible for the Criminal Rule 4(B) speedy trial remedy.
Turner v. Rogers, No. 10–10, __ U.S. __ (June 20, 2011)
In civil contempt proceedings to enforce child support, “where . . . the custodial parent (entitled to receive the support) is unrepresented by counsel, the State need not provide counsel to the noncustodial parent (required to provide the support),” subject to the “caveat . . . that the State must nonetheless have in place alternative procedures that assure a fundamentally fair determination of the critical incarceration-related question, whether the supporting parent is able to comply with the support order.”