Two burglaries committed one after the other, four miles apart, were a single episode of criminal conduct subject to the cap on consecutive sentencing, and appellate counsel’s assistance was ineffective for failure to raise the issue as a sentencing error.
Appeals
Harris v. State, No. 02A03-1402-CR-73, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2014).
Exigent circumstances justified officers’ warrantless seizure of a handgun they saw defendant place inside an apartment front door as they approached, so that the seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Indiana Constitution, Article I, § 11.
Dawson v. Thornton, Inc., No. 49A02-1403-CT-208, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 22, 2014).
The trial court properly did not instruct the jury regarding spoliation of evidence when plaintiff inspected and took pictures of the evidence, and the evidence was available for over a year after the incident.
Richard v. State, No. 46A05-1312-CR-628, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 8, 2014).
Evidence that housing complex was at the time of trial a “family housing complex” as defined by statute was insufficient to prove the drug transaction was within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex at the time of the alleged offense.
Griffith v. State, No. 48A02-1310-CR-909, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sep. 30, 2014).
Trial court properly excluded testimony from two witnesses about prior inconsistent statements made by a witness who had testified earlier.