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.”
Appeals
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.
Regalado v. Eastate of Regalado, No. 64A05-0911-CV-672, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 27, 2010)
Indiana Code section 29-1-2-7(b), which governs paternal inheritance to, through, and from a child born out of wedlock, requires a child to show she is a child born out of wedlock; because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the child in this case was a child born out of wedlock, trial court erred in granting summary judgment in the child’s favor.
Walker v. State, No. 71A03-1003-CR-115, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 17, 2010)
“Continuing crime doctrine” did not apply to distinct crimes.