Police had probable cause to believe contraband was in the residence, but a warrantless search violated the Indiana Constitution when “[t]wenty-one days had elapsed since the controlled buy, and there [wa]s no evidence that exigent circumstances called for an immediate arrest.”
Curtis v. State, No. 49S02-1010-CR-620, __ N.E.2d __ (June 14, 2011)
“We hold that pending criminal charges do not violate a defendant’s right to due process if (1) the trial court has not involuntarily committed the defendant and (2) the trial court has not made an appropriate finding that the defendant will never be restored to competency. We also hold that . . . the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C).”
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, No. 09–11121, __ U.S. __ (June 16, 2011)
“[T]he age of a child subjected to police questioning is relevant to the custody analysis of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966).”
Gaby v. State, No. 79A02-1006-CR-804, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 7, 2011)
After alleged victim testified she remembered that defendant’s vaginal molestation did not include touching her in other ways, it was error to allow her pretrial statement to the contrary into evidence to “refresh” her recollection.
Johnson v. State, No. 53S01-1106-CR-335, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 8, 2011)
A judge who receives complaints from a defendant that a public defender, known to have been dilatory in other situations, is neglecting the case “must at the very least receive assurances from the public defender’s office that the complaint has been adequately addressed.”