Statute, not the trial court or the DOC, determines length of a sex offender’s sex registry obligations.
Appeals
Nicholson v. State, No. 55A01-1005-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 29, 2011)
Single phone call was not “repeated or continuing harrassment” required for stalking, and even if phone calls from period two years’ earlier were considered this element was not proven.
Eppl v. DiGiacomo, No. 45A03-1007-SC-402, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 4, 2011)
Tenant’s mere delivery of the keys is not sufficient to demonstrate that landlord accepted surrender of the premises; thus the end of the month, in a month-to-month tenancy, started the security deposit statute’s 45-day clock for the landlord to provide the itemization of charges against the security deposit.
Ball v. State, No. 06A01-1007-CR-426, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 20, 2011)
“Sleep is not equivalent to a mental disability or deficiency for purposes of the sexual battery statute, and therefore, the State’s evidence that Ball’s victim was sleeping when he began kissing her is insufficient to support his conviction for sexual battery.”
Sneed v. State, No. 16A01-1010-CR-544, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 25, 2011)
Limiting bail to full cash deposit only, when trial court did not articulate any reasons for not allowing the surety bond defendant requested, and when record did not indicate defendant was a flight risk, was an abuse of discretion.