Court could not order defendant to participate in victim-offender reconciliation program (VORP) without his agreement.
M. May
Buford v. State, No. 20A05-1408-CR-392, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 24, 2015).
Search warrant was invalid; uncorroborated anonymous tip of drug dealing at defendant’s home, plus police smelling burnt marijuana and seeing unspecified amount of marijuana “shake” on table in the home, did not establish probable cause of drug dealing.
Kowalskey v. State, No. 32A01-1503-CR-99, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2015).
Defendant’s conduct did not waive his right to counsel. His oral and written requests for the trial court to compel discovery were not obstreperous, and trial court had neither adequately advised defendant of the dangers of self-representation nor made necessary findings on whether his conduct under the circumstances constituted knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.
In re I.J., No. 57A03-1501-AD-28, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 8, 2015).
The trial court erred in denying a possible father’s (third-party) request for genetic testing for a child born to a married couple who placed the newborn for adoption.
State v. Taylor, No. 46A04-1407-CR-316, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 10, 2015).
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.