[W]hile a defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of the instrument may be relevant to show intent to defraud, it is not an essential element of forgery.
Appeals
Taylor v. State, No. 49A02-0809-CR-795, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2009)
When the defendant agreed to go to the station for questioning about another matter, he had already received his ticket for driving without his seatbelt, so the subsequent search of his person made for the safety of the officer who would drive him to the station did not violate the Seatbelt Enforcement Act. But because defendant had not agreed to be driven to the station by the police for the questioning, the search of his person was unreasonable under Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.
Chacon v. Jones-Schilds, No. 02A05-0808-CV-484, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 8, 2009)
Trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding proposed evidence of the lack of a recording of an incident at a jail (and the corresponding negative inference therefrom), because the proponent of the evidence failed to comply with the court’s discovery and pretrial orders.
Booker v. State, No. 45A03-0806-CR-281, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 25, 2009)
Providing defense with defendant’s inculpatory statement to officer would have been “right,” but the State’s failure to disclose was not a discovery violation, as discovery order did not include an unrecorded oral statement and State has no independent duty to provide defense with inculpatory evidence.
Hape v. State, No. 63A01-0804-CR-175, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 31, 2009)
Hape v. State (Ind. Ct. App., Vaidik, J.) – As text messages are intrinsic to the cell phones in which they are stored, messages played by jurors in deliberations on a phone admitted without objection as an exhibit could not be used to impeach the jury’s verdict. Text messages are subject to authentication separate from that offered for the phone they are on.