Conviction for stalking four victims, based on conduct spanning January 2012 to February 2014, violated actual-evidence double jeopardy principles when defendant had been convicted a month earlier for invasion of privacy committed against three of the same victims for conduct spanning three days in January 2014. The State presented substantial evidence of the three-day course of conduct in the subsequent trial; and both cases alleged a violation of the same previously issued no-contact order.
E. Brown
Abernathy v. Gulden, No. 45A03-1503-MI-73, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 30, 2015).
Ind. Code § 9-30-10-4(e), requiring the BMV to use the dates of the offenses rather than the dates of the judgments in determining a person’s status as a HTV, is a procedural amendment which does not violate the ex post facto clauses of the Indiana and United States Constitutions.
Patchett v. Lee, No. 29D01-1305-CT-4116, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 19, 2015).
Evidence of payments made by the Healthy Indiana Plan (“HIP”) to reimburse plaintiff’s medical providers was inadmissible.
Darringer v. State, No. 32A01-1503-CR-86, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2015).
Traffic stop was based on unreasonable mistake of law, thus requiring suppression of evidence and reversal of OWI conviction; deputy’s belief in mid-2014 that temporary license plate could not be displayed in back window was unreasonable in view of 2013 amendment of I.C. § 9-32-6-11 expressly permitting such displays.
Pittman v. State, No. 49A05-1504-CR-137, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2015).
Attempted stalking, unlike the completed crime, does not require proof that the defendant’s conduct “actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened.”