Reverses for “demonstrative” use of video in final argument, when video was not in evidence and would have probably been inadmissible, was prejudicial, and pertained only to an undisputed issue.
M. Barnes
Neff v. State, No. 29A02-0904-CR-332, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2009)
Venue for child solicitation crime was in county in which the electronic solicitations occurred, not the county where defendant and “child” were to meet; reversal for improper venue is not an acquittal, so defendant may be retried in county of proper venue.
Damron v. State, No. 49F18-8909-PC-109913, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 19, 2009)
Record is not “silent” for purposes of Boykin rights waiver advisement because guilty plea hearing recording was destroyed; here, P-C.R. petitioner presented no evidence he was not advised of Boykin rights, so “presumption of regularity” that advice was given applied.
Baker v. Taylor, No. 18A04-0812-CV-746, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2009)
Where an account is established by an attorney-in-fact using entirely the funds of a principal, the attorney-in-fact is named joint owner or POD beneficiary, and the principal has no direct involvement in, or even awareness of, the creation of the account, the survivor cannot be presumed the owner of the accounts.
Gerber v. State, No. 02A03-0902-CR-73, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2009)
Gerber v. State (Ind. Ct. App., May, J.) – Expungement statute does not require petitioner to wait until limitations period for dismissed charge has run, and trial judge erred in summarily dismissing expungement petition on that basis; on remand, prosecutor is not authorized to participate due to failure to have filed a notice of opposition.