Even if a search warrant has been issued, forcing a person to unlock, and therefore disclose that contents of their cellphone, violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
M. Massa
Gammons v. State, No. 20S-CR-22, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 26, 2020).
Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 10.0300 dilutes the causal standard for self-defense; the instructional error was not harmless and case was remanded for a new trial.
State v. Ryder, No. 20S-CR-435, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 29, 2020).
Blood-draw search warrant application satisfied the filing requirement under Ind. Code § 35-33-5-2(a) because the signing judge’s uncontroverted certification that an affidavit had been delivered to her at the time of the warrant’s authorization established that the filing requirement had been satisfied.
Payne v. State, No. 20S-CR-313, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 18, 2020).
When there is no conflict in expert opinion that a defendant is legally insane, the State must present other probative evidence from which to infer the defendant’s sanity.
Perkins v. Memorial Hospital of South Bend, No. 20S-CT-233, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 31, 2020).
Testimony compelled by a subpoena or other statutory duty is protected under the public policy exception to at-will employment.