Under the new-crime exception to the rule excluding evidence obtained from an illegal warrantless search, if a defendant’s response is itself a new and distinct crime, then evidence of the new crime is admissible notwithstanding the prior illegal search.
Appeals
Hernandez-Velazquez v. Hernandez, No. 18A-DR-3109, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 14, 2019).
Trial court properly set aside property conveyances under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act to effectuate the division of marital assets during a divorce.
New v. State, No. 19A-CR-575, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2019).
Defendant’s substantial rights were prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to give the proposed instruction that was a correct statement of law, was based upon the evidence, was not covered by other instructions, and was necessary to enable the jury to fairly consider defendant’s theory or defense.
Watson v. State, No. 19A-CR-49, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2019).
The one-year speedy trial deadline includes cases involving habitual offender adjudications, and after nearly six and two-thirds years of inexplicable delay—with at least one year of delay directly attributable to the State—there was a Criminal Rule 4(C) violation. Defendant should not have been held to answer to the allegations that he is a habitual offender.
In re Guardianship of Luis, No. 19A-GU-1276, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 1, 2019).
For Special Immigrant Juvenile status, trial courts are required to consider and make findings on two statutory elements: (1) is reunification with one or both parents viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law; and (2) would it be in the special immigrant’s best interest to be returned to her previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence.