Habitual offender enhancement of a drug dealing offense requires that only one prior have also been a dealing offense, as the offense being sentenced for counts as one of the “two or more unrelated dealing convictions.”
M. May
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.
Nealy v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 49A02-0812-CV-1096, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2009)
Insurance company was not entitled to setoff pursuant to the advance payment statute because there were multiple defendants and the insurance company was the plaintiffs’, rather than the defendants’, insurer.
Peterson v. State, No. 29A05-0902-CR-101, __ N.E.2d )__ (Ind. Ct. App., July 14, 2009)
Probationer’s answers to sex offender treatment polygraph exam were properly admitted at his probation revocation hearing.
Hoop v. State, No. 49A02-0807-CR-666, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 14, 2009)
In contrast to the Fourth Amendment, the Indiana Constitution requires reasonable suspicion before police may conduct a drug dog sniff of a residence.