Illinois residential burglary statute was “substantially similar” to Indiana burglary offense; despite not expressly containing a “breaking” element, Illinois caselaw infers such a requirement, and Illinois statute classifies it as a “forcible felony.”
Evidence was insufficient to support “bodily injury” element of resisting law enforcement as a Level 6 felony; fact that officer was injured while chasing defendant on foot established only contributing, not proximate, causation.
C. Bradford
State v. J.S., No. 16A04-1503-MI-89, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 28, 2015).
Trial court could not prevent the Bureau of Motor Vehicles from disclosing expunged OWI conviction to Commercial Driver’s License Information System. (At issue is the expungement law effective July 1, 2013, which has since been amended.)
Garcia v. State, No. 45A03-1503-CR-86, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2015).
Probable-cause affidavit’s statement that crime victim paid $3,600 for counterfeit coins was insufficient to support restitution order in that amount; facts presented in probable cause affidavits pose a risk of unreliability that the hearsay rule is designed to protect against.
Criswell v. State, No. 02A03-1501-CR-22, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 13, 2015).
Police officer’s statement in internal-affairs investigation was inadmissible because it was given under “Garrity notice” that it “cannot be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings” except perjury or obstruction of justice. Statement, and its evidentiary fruits, should therefore be suppressed.
Bradley v. State, No. 49A05-1404-CR-181, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 16, 2015).
Warrantless entry of home was proper under federal and state constitutions, because occupant who answered the door had apparent authority to consent to the entry. Protective sweep of kitchen after consensual entry was proper under federal and state constitutions (declining to follow Cudworth v. State, 818 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)). Convictions for both A-felony cocaine dealing and C-felony possessing cocaine and a firearm violated double jeopardy, because charging information did not differentiate between sources of cocaine: small quantity found in home, or large quantity found in defendant’s pocket.