Trial court erred in ordering blanket suppression of all testimony from police officers who invoked their Fifth Amendment rights in connection with eavesdropping on defendant’s discussions with counsel. Officers’ misconduct was egregious, but blanket exclusion was too extreme and Court of Appeals was not willing to presume prejudice to defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. Instead, trial court would need to make individualized determinations of prejudice at trial in light of each witness’s testimony on direct examination.
M. May
Levy v. Jackson, No. 29A02-1407-CT-482, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 11, 2015).
Because the trial court’s order sets out the evidence in favor of the verdict for plaintiff but does not mention any of the evidence in favor of a verdict for defendant, it failed to comply with Trial Rule 59(J), and the jury verdict was reinstated.
Jenkins v. State, No. 20A04-1410-CR-489, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2015).
“Breaking” element of burglary was satisfied when defendant gained entry to an apartment by pushing aside a person standing near the entry, then immediately subduing the occupant by force.
Dunn v. State, No. 49A02-1407-CR-470, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2015).
Court abused its discretion by granting State’s motion to withdraw a plea agreement because the victim had not been notified; victim-notice error was invited by State’s sworn assertion in connection with the plea agreement that victim had been notified.
Bowman v. State, No. 21A04-1404-CR-180, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2015).
Without lab test, field test, or corroborating circumstantial evidence, testimony that the product of a controlled buy “looked like” heroin was insufficient to prove dealing in a narcotic drug within 1,000 feet of a school.