Trial court retained subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve defendant’s constitutional claim against the Department of Correction requiring him to register as a sex offender.
Appeals
Seo v. State, No. 29A05-1710-CR-2466, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 21, 2018).
Compelling defendant to unlock her iPhone, under the threat of contempt and imprisonment, is constitutionally prohibited by the Fifth Amendment because revealing or using the passcode to do so is a testimonial act. The State must describe with reasonable particularity the information it seeks to compel defendant to produce and why.
Tunstall v. Manning, No. 49A04-1711-CT-2572, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 20, 2018).
Trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow Defendant to cross-examine Plaintiff’s expert witness about his disciplinary history with the Medical Licensing Board.
Crittendon v. State, No. 18A-CR-206, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 8, 2018).
Defendant was properly convicted of possession of heroin, without the introduction of the drug itself, when he admitted using heroin and showed clear signs of a heroin overdose.
D.M. v. State, No. 49A02-1711-JV-2708, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 8, 2018).
When juvenile defendant’s attorney vigorously argued in favor of placing him on probation and submitted a plan for the juvenile court’s review, the court’s failure to specifically ask juvenile defendant if he wanted to make a statement was not a blatant violation of basic principles, did not pose a potential of substantial harm, and did not deprive him of fundamental due process. However, courts are strongly encouraged to afford juvenile delinquents the opportunity to address the court before final disposition.