Trial court’s comments disagreeing with the jury’s verdict were insufficient to taint the sentencing decision, and the sentence was not inappropriate given the nature of the crime and defendant’s demonstrated character
M. Massa
Seo v. State, No. 18S-CR-595, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 23, 2020).
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.
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.