“Prison mailbox rule” (prisoner mailing considered filed when given to prison authorities to be sent to court) applies to notices of direct appeal.
Koenig v. State, No. 42A04-0903-CR-146, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2009)
Defendant’s trial objection on hearsay and foundational grounds sufficed to preserve the Confrontation Clause argument he wished to raise on appeal.
Miller v. State, No. 09A02-0812-CR-1133, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2009)
Reverses for “demonstrative” use of video in final argument, when video was not in evidence and would have probably been inadmissible, was prejudicial, and pertained only to an undisputed issue.
Neff v. State, No. 29A02-0904-CR-332, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2009)
Venue for child solicitation crime was in county in which the electronic solicitations occurred, not the county where defendant and “child” were to meet; reversal for improper venue is not an acquittal, so defendant may be retried in county of proper venue.
Lovitt v. State, No. 73A05-0904-CR-229, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov., 2009)
Driver’s possession of marijuana in his pocket did not make his vehicle a common nuisance.