Evidence defendant was speeding sufficed to prove the “endangerment” element of Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated.
Appeals
Robinson v. State, No. 20A04-0909-CR-530, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 29, 2009)
Sheriff’s failure to transport defendant from correctional facility for initial hearing did not stop the running of the 70 day period for defendant’s Criminal Rule 4(B) speedy trial.
Herron v. State, No. 55A05-0906-CV-341, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 29, 2009)
Person required to register as Arizona sex offender was consequently required to register under Indiana law. As Arizona lifetime registration law was in effect when Arizona offense was committed, Indiana lifetime registration is not an ex post facto violation.
Hoeppner v. State, No. 52A04-0908-CR-494, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 29, 2009)
Modifies probation condition requiring polygraph exam.
Lainhart v. State, No. 24A01-0904-CR-184, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2009
Testifying defendant may be impeached with his failure to explain his innocence to the police after he is charged but prior to his receiving Miranda warnings, under the Miranda-based Doyle v. Ohio decisions; Indiana’s law does not offer more protection than the federal Doyle cases.