U.S. Supreme Court’s Gant, which did away with “brightline” rule allowing searches of passenger compartments at the time the driver was arrested even if driver was no longer within reaching distance of the vehicle, does not apply to a pre-Gant “brightline” search legal when made under the Court’s former New York v. Belton precedent.
M. Barnes
Estate of Wilgus S. Gibbs, Sr., No. 81A01-1011-ES-560, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 15, 2011).
A self-proving clause in a will creates a rebuttable presumption that the document was properly executed, and publication of the will is one aspect of that execution.
Huddleston v. State, No. 20A05-1012-PC-813, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 8, 2011).
“We cannot conclude that Huddleston’s ultimate ‘yes’ to the question of whether he was guilty of murder was sufficient to override his earlier statements expressly denying the requisite culpability for murder.”
Nicholson v. State, No. 55A01-1005-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 29, 2011)
Single phone call was not “repeated or continuing harrassment” required for stalking, and even if phone calls from period two years’ earlier were considered this element was not proven.
D.G. v. State, No. 49A04-1006-JV-416, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 13, 2011)
Since there was no recording of the sidebar conference at which defense counsel assertedly objected to alleged molesting victim’s competence to testify, and the parties could not agree as to what was said in the conference, defense counsel was assumed to have made the objection, and the failure of the trial court or of prosecuting counsel to then question the witness and assess her competence required reversal of the delinquency finding.