Confidential informant’s taped statements as to what occurred in controlled buy were hearsay and were inadmissible as well under the Crawford Confrontation Clause rule; informant’s statements during the buy were not admitted for the truth of their content and hence were not hearsay.
Appeals
Shepherd v. State, No. 70A01-0908-PC-388, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 14, 2010)
Defense counsel’s representation of key prosecution witness on unrelated pending charges created a prima facie case of actual conflict and resulted in counsel’s failure to cross-examine the witness on the charges, resulting in ineffective assistance.
Barnes v. State, No. 82A05-0910-CR-592, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 15, 2010)
Evidence required court to have instructed on defendant’s right to reasonably resist officer’s unlawful entry into defendant’s home.
Blakemore v. State, No. 49A02-0907-CR-614, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 16, 2010)
Plea agreement to comply with “the statutory requirements of registering . . . as a sex offender,” when there were no such requirements at the time of conviction, could not justify ex post facto application during probation of subsequently-enacted registration obligation.
Smith v. Wrigley, No. 33A04-0912-CV-727, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 14, 2010)
Statutory requirement that inmate pay civil filing fees due to prior frivolous civil case dismissals does not violate Indiana Constitution Open Courts Clause.