Person required to register as Arizona sex offender was consequently required to register under Indiana law. As Arizona lifetime registration law was in effect when Arizona offense was committed, Indiana lifetime registration is not an ex post facto violation.
Hoeppner v. State, No. 52A04-0908-CR-494, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 29, 2009)
Modifies probation condition requiring polygraph exam.
Lainhart v. State, No. 24A01-0904-CR-184, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2009
Testifying defendant may be impeached with his failure to explain his innocence to the police after he is charged but prior to his receiving Miranda warnings, under the Miranda-based Doyle v. Ohio decisions; Indiana’s law does not offer more protection than the federal Doyle cases.
Davidson v. State, No. 49A02-0904-CR-287, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 30, 2009)
Describes split in Court of Appeals cases as to whether suspended or other non-executed portions of a sentence count the same as incarceration portions of sentence in Appellate Rule 7(B) sentence appropriateness analysis.
Clay City Consol. Sch. Corp. v. Timberman, No. 11S04-0904-CV-134, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Nov. 30, 2009)
Indiana law recognizes a rebuttable presumption that children between the ages of seven and 14 are incapable of contributory negligence.