The trial court abused its discretion when it gave the sudden emergency jury instruction with no evidence to support it. Because the sudden emergency instruction was given and emphasized in closing argument, a new trial is warranted.
M. Bailey
Leatherman v. State, No. 47A04-1711-CR-2711, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 9, 2018).
An individual participating in a needle exchange program may be found guilty of possession of paraphernalia if he intended to use syringes for unlawful ends; however, to sustain a conviction for maintaining a common nuisance for the unlawful delivery of a controlled substance from a vehicle, the State must show that it has been used on more than one occasion for that purpose.
Wilder v. State, No. 49A02-1706-CR-1420, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 9, 2018).
Even though the underlying crime did not involve the use of a firearm, prohibiting defendant from possessing firearms during his probation period did not violate his right to bear arms under the state or federal constitutions
Gray v. County of Starke, Ind., No. 64A03-1703-PL-585, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 2017).
“The excessive force objective reasonableness standard…may be instructive but does not provide a minimum threshold for termination of police employment when an allegation has been made that the officer violated an internal use of force rule.”
Walton v. State, No. 79A04-1604-CR-768, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 4, 2017).
A serious violent felon who possesses more than one firearm has committed more than one offense.