At sentencing the court heard testimony about other victims’ molestations, which were not to be charged under the plea bargain; caselaw holds conduct for which charges are avoided under a bargain cannot be used to give longer sentences, but here nothing in the record indicated the court considered the testimony as an aggravating factor.
C. Bradford
Clanton v. State, No. 49A02-1203-CR-198, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 15, 2012).
Police officer in full uniform working as a private security guard was acting as a law enforcement officer under the circumstances of the case; officer making a Terry frisk could remove sharp object from defendant’s pocket, but when officer realized object was a pen cap and not a weapon he could not take the plastic bag he observed in the cap out and inspect its contents, even though he testified bags in such caps were often used, in his experience, to store narcotics.
Lewis v. State, No. 40A01-1106-CR-276, __ N.E.2d _ (Ind. Ct. App., May 14, 2012).
“Can I get a lawyer?” was an unequivocal request for an attorney under Miranda.
Otte v. State, No. 84A01-1108-CR-356, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2012).
Rejects argument that expert’s testimony that victims of domestic violence often recant their stories was improper vouching in violation of Evidence Rule 704(b).
Suarez v. State, No. 02A05-1106-PC-325, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2012).
Strength of case against him and magnitude of benefit he received from his plea bargain were primary factors supporting conclusion prisoner would have entered his guilty plea even had defense counsel properly advised him of the potential for deportation.