Statements to a witness in a pending action to “bow out” to not “lose anything in the end” is sufficient to sustain a conviction for attempted obstruction of justice.
J. Baker
Bean v. State, No. 19A-CR-225, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 13, 2020).
A second or subsequent pat down search must by supported by specific and articulable facts that the suspect is armed and dangerous or incident to arrest.
J.S. v. State, No. 19A-CR-733, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 13, 2019).
Where defendant filed a motion for indigent counsel but failed to appear at a hearing to consider that motion, trial court improperly denied his motion and required that he proceed pro se without giving sufficient warning about the perils of self-representation, and by not inquiring as to his indigency.
Watson v. State, No. 19A-CR-49, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2019).
The one-year speedy trial deadline includes cases involving habitual offender adjudications, and after nearly six and two-thirds years of inexplicable delay—with at least one year of delay directly attributable to the State—there was a Criminal Rule 4(C) violation. Defendant should not have been held to answer to the allegations that he is a habitual offender.
In re Guardianship of Luis, No. 19A-GU-1276, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 1, 2019).
For Special Immigrant Juvenile status, trial courts are required to consider and make findings on two statutory elements: (1) is reunification with one or both parents viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law; and (2) would it be in the special immigrant’s best interest to be returned to her previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence.