The emergency rule promulgated by the Indiana Board of Pharmacy (the Board) purporting to add MDMB to Schedule I, fails to provide adequate information for a person of ordinary intelligence to determine whether he or she is dealing a substance that contains MDMB, and therefore, it is unconstitutionally vague.
Miller v. State, No. 22S-CR-59, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2022).
A party invites an error if it was part of a deliberate, well-informed trial strategy, which means there must be evidence of counsel’s strategic maneuvering at trial to establish invited error. As to juror challenges, an anticipated refusal does not excuse compliance with the exhaustion rule; a party must still try to use a peremptory challenge even if he believes it will be unsuccessful.
Theobald v. State, No. 21A-CR-2746, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 30, 2022).
The “new-crime exception” to the Miranda exclusionary rule applies when a statement is made by a person who is subject to custodial interrogation but not given Miranda warnings. Under such circumstances, the statement is still admissible if the statement itself is evidence of a new crime.
Powers v. State, No. 21A-CR-1915, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 22, 2022).
An officer must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to detain an individual beyond what is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the traffic stop.
Church v. State, No. 22S-CR-201, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 23, 2022).
Ind. Code § 35-40-5-11.5, the child sex-offense deposition statute, is both constitutionally sound and substantive in nature, and therefore, the Indiana Trial Rules cannot abrogate or modify the statute.