Convictions for Level 2 Kidnapping for Ransom and Level 5 Kidnapping, based on one removal, violate double jeopardy. In addition, convictions for both criminal confinement and kidnapping, both enhanced based on a demand for ransom, and are so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction,” violate double jeopardy.
Appeals
Hackner v. State, 19A-CR-1577, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2021).
A dying victim’s non-verbal identification of the perpetrator, in response to an officer’s question, is a question credibility and not admissibility. The weight to be given identification evidence and any determination of whether it is satisfactory and trustworthy is a function of the trier of facts.
Wisdom v. State, 20A-CR-931, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2020).
To authenticate under Evidence Rule 901, social-media evidence turns on whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding it is what the claimant purports it to be. And while the source of the evidence may sometimes be needed, authentication depends on context.
Bradbury v. State, 20A-PC-620, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 23, 2020).
Trial counsel were ineffective when they stipulated to fact of which there was a serious evidentiary dispute, and when they failed to seek a lesser-included instruction that would have been available absent the stipulation.
Bunnell v. State, 20A-CR-981, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2020).
When probable cause for a search warrant is premised solely on law enforcement’s detection of the odor of raw marijuana, the assertion must be based on more than personal belief: the affiant–officer must provide some information about the detecting officers’ relevant “training” or “experience” that led to the ultimate conclusion.