The subject matter of post-assault sexual history must be introduced by the State at trial for the exception to the rape shield law permitting admissibility to apply. Moreover, while a defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense, that defense must still comply with the Indiana Rules of Evidence.
Appeals
Anderson v. State, No. 19A-CR-2003, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2020).
A reviewing court reviews plea agreements de novo and typographical errors in the agreement will be interpreted in a manner to give effect to the intent of the parties based on the agreement as a whole.
Tyson v. State, No. 19A-CR-1813, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2020).
Refusal to remove one’s hands from his/her pockets when instructed by a law enforcement officer, when the pockets clearly contain items, satisfies the “forcibly resist” element of resisting law enforcement.
Chapman v. State, No. 19A-CR-1636, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 31, 2020).
Confinement, for purposes of the time-period set forth in Indiana Rule of Evidence 609(b) (Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years), does not include probation.
Scott v. State, No. 19A-CR-516, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 31, 2020).
Conduct by a defendant designed to procure a witness’s absence from trial is sufficient, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence, to forfeit his/her right to confrontation. In the context of obstruction of justice, coercion requires only that the defendant indicate, explicitly or implicitly, a consequence – not a particular kind of consequence, such as a positive or negative one.