State law, not the Constitution, determines the consequences of an erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge, when all jurors selected are qualified and unbiased.
Tyler v. State, No. 69S04-0801-CR-3, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 31, 2009)
[A] party may not introduce testimony via the Protected Person Statute if the same person testifies in open court as to the same matters.
Gray v. State, No. 10S01-0808-CR-476, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 31, 2009)
Defendant’s behavior and statements at the two separate robberies were sufficient, without more, to prove that he had a “gun” in his pocket, but his apprehension immediately after the second robbery with only an electric shaver in his pocket precluded an “armed” enhancement for that robbery.
Booker v. State, No. 45A03-0806-CR-281, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 25, 2009)
Providing defense with defendant’s inculpatory statement to officer would have been “right,” but the State’s failure to disclose was not a discovery violation, as discovery order did not include an unrecorded oral statement and State has no independent duty to provide defense with inculpatory evidence.
Hape v. State, No. 63A01-0804-CR-175, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 31, 2009)
Hape v. State (Ind. Ct. App., Vaidik, J.) – As text messages are intrinsic to the cell phones in which they are stored, messages played by jurors in deliberations on a phone admitted without objection as an exhibit could not be used to impeach the jury’s verdict. Text messages are subject to authentication separate from that offered for the phone they are on.