Describes split in Court of Appeals cases as to whether suspended or other non-executed portions of a sentence count the same as incarceration portions of sentence in Appellate Rule 7(B) sentence appropriateness analysis.
Appeals
Lindsey v. State, No. 29A02-0902-CR-196, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 9, 2009)
Officer reasonably concluded that car approached by armed robbery suspect might have been suspect’s car and exigent circumstances justified officer’s opening vehicle door wider to check for accomplices inside.
Holden v. State, No. 57A03-0903-CR-111, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 9, 2009)
Juror who asked a witness a question during a recess should have been examined by the court and parties as provided in Jury Rule 24, but any error in not following the Rule was harmless in light of court’s remedy of having the witness recalled and posing the individual juror’s recess question to the witness in the presence of the entire jury during trial.
Wright v. State, No. 49A04-0905-CR-259, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 10, 2009)
Dying stab victim’s response to question “who did this” from police officer trying to help staunch the wounds was not “testimonial” under Crawford doctrine and hence its admission did not violate defendant’s confrontation right.
Nunley v. State, No. 31A01-0902-CR-88, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 16, 2009)
Child’s statement did not have sufficient indicia of reliability to be admissible under the protected persons statute.