There is no provision of the appellate rules which permits trial courts to expand the time limit in which to seek appeal as prescribed by Appellate Rule 9
Appeals
Moore v. State, No. 22A-CR-1979, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2023).
In distinguishing between the odor of marijuana and hemp for purposes of determining whether there was probable cause to search a vehicle, courts apply the “fair probability” test. Although it may equally possible that a strong odor emanating from a vehicle may be hemp just as marijuana, circumstances may create a fair probability—that is, “a substantial chance”—that the vehicle contains contraband.
Wainscott v. State, No. 22A-CR-1817, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 16, 2023).
A warrant authorizing a search, testing, or other analysis of an item, tangible or intangible, is deemed executed when the item is seized by a law enforcement officer.
Wellman v. State, No. 22A-CR-1673, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 10, 2023).
When a trial court grants a defendant’s motion for continuance because of the State’s failure to comply with the defendant’s discovery requests, the resulting delay is not chargeable to the defendant. It does not matter whether the State was negligent in complying the discovery request.
York v. State, No. 22A-CR-2214, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 8, 2023).
A handgun equipped with a switch device may constitute the offense of possession of a machine gun if the gun shoots; or can be readily restored to shoot; automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger as defined by Indiana Code § 35-31.5-2-190.