Confidential informant’s taped statements as to what occurred in controlled buy were hearsay and were inadmissible as well under the Crawford Confrontation Clause rule; informant’s statements during the buy were not admitted for the truth of their content and hence were not hearsay.
Shepherd v. State, No. 70A01-0908-PC-388, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 14, 2010)
Defense counsel’s representation of key prosecution witness on unrelated pending charges created a prima facie case of actual conflict and resulted in counsel’s failure to cross-examine the witness on the charges, resulting in ineffective assistance.
Shotts v. State, No. 71S03-0905-CR-253, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Apr. 15, 2010)
Suppression of evidence found during Indiana warrantless extradition arrest erroneously focused on flaws in Alabama magistrate’s probable cause determination, when correct inquiry was whether Indiana officers’ reliance on the report of Alabama warrant was reasonable.
Barnes v. State, No. 82A05-0910-CR-592, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 15, 2010)
Evidence required court to have instructed on defendant’s right to reasonably resist officer’s unlawful entry into defendant’s home.
Blakemore v. State, No. 49A02-0907-CR-614, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 16, 2010)
Plea agreement to comply with “the statutory requirements of registering . . . as a sex offender,” when there were no such requirements at the time of conviction, could not justify ex post facto application during probation of subsequently-enacted registration obligation.