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.
C. Bradford
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.
R.L. Turner Corp. v. Wressell, No. 06A05-1411-PL-540, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App, Sept. 15, 2015).
“In determining a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees, consideration should be given to the nature and difficulty of the litigation; the time, skill, and effort involved; the fee customarily charged for similar legal services; the amount involved; the time limitations imposed by the circumstances; and the result achieved in the litigation.” There is no definitive cap to attorney’s fee awards based on the potential or actual recovery.
Curtis v. State, No. 18A02-1501-CR-59, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2015).
Robbing a pharmacist of painkillers, robbing a pharmacy technician of her car keys, then stealing the technician’s car parked outside the pharmacy, were separate and distinct criminal acts and did not amount to a “single larceny.”
Bryant v. State, No. 90A04-1501-CR-11, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 7, 2015).
In prosecution for receiving stolen property, county where the property was stolen was a proper venue, regardless of whether defendant knew where the theft occurred.