Failure to use the last peremptory against either of the two jurors a party complained should have been dismissed for cause required the party to show the failure to dismiss both of the jurors was erroneous, when court had made the entire venire available for challenges for cause before requiring peremptories to be exercised.
Appeals
Wolverine Mutual Insurance Co. v. Oliver, No. 20A03-1003-SC-162, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 9, 2010)
Given that Small Claims Rule 4(A) provides that the statute of limitations is “deemed at issue” and that the trial court asked if there was a limitations question at a point when plaintiff could still have litigated it, the court properly decided the case based on the statute of limitations even though defendant had not raised or argued it.
Girdler v. State, No. 73A01-1001-CR-14, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2010)
Concludes, contrary to other Court of Appeals cases, that a defendant may be convicted of auto theft even if he was not the original thief; also concludes the rule of “exclusive possession of stolen property since the time of the original theft only applies where direct evidence of a defendant’s knowledge of the property’s stolen character is lacking and such knowledge must be proven circumstantially.”
Adcock v. State, No. 47A01-0912-CR-591, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 27, 2010)
Prosecutor’s analogy to jig saw missing two pieces to demonstrate the difference between beyond all reasonable doubt and beyond a reasonable doubt did not require reversal.
Fisher v. State, No. 10A01-1001-CR-21, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 30, 2010)
Defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated when he diligently attempted to be tried on Indiana charges while in federal custody for five years but State did not seek to have him tried under a policy not to return persons in another jurisdiction’s custody until their sentences were served in that jurisdiction.