The excessiveness test announced in State v. Timbs, 134 N.E.3d 12 (Ind. 2019), has two dimensions: instrumentality and proportionality. Instrumentality is not at issue in here because Timbs acknowledged that he used the forfeited vehicle to traffic heroin. As to proportionality, courts must look to whether the forfeiture is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offenses and the claimant’s culpability. This inquiry turns on three factors: the culpability of the claimant for misusing the forfeited property, the harshness of the forfeiture, and the gravity of the claimant’s underlying offenses.
G. Slaughter
Combs v. State, 20S-CR-616, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 3, 2021).
The plain view exception to the warrant requirement may justify the seizure of a vehicle believed to be the fruit, instrumentality, or evidence of a crime provided that police are lawfully in a position from which to view the vehicle, its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and police have a lawful right of access to the vehicle.
Wright v. State, 20S-LW-260, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 4, 2021).
When deciding whether a defendant properly waives the right to counsel in capital and LWOP cases, a trial court should frame its waiver inquiry with the state’s heightened reliability interests in mind. That inquiry should focus on whether, and to what extent, the defendant has prior experience with the legal system; the scope of the defendant’s knowledge of criminal law, legal procedures, rules of evidence, and sentencing; and whether and to what extent the defendant can articulate and present any possible defenses, including lesser-included offenses and mitigating evidence.
New Nello Operating Co., LLC v CompressAir, No. 20S-CC-578, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 22, 2021).
Continuity of ownership is necessary for the de-facto-merger and mere-continuation exceptions to apply to the buyer acquiring the seller’s assets, but not its liabilities.
Tate v. State, 19S-LW-444, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 28, 2021).
Defendant was sentenced to life without parole. The record contained substantial evidence of both the torture and child-molest aggravators on which the jury could reasonably rely. However, because there was a third unchallenged aggravator, torture and child-molest aggravators notwithstanding, any error would not have altered the jury’s recommendation or the trial court’s decision to impose life without parole