In contrast to the Fourth Amendment, the Indiana Constitution requires reasonable suspicion before police may conduct a drug dog sniff of a residence.
M. May
Stokes v. State, No. 43A04-0811-CR-655, __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2009)
Alternate’s conversation with deliberating jurors did not require a mistrial when trial judge polled jurors and all indicated they were not influenced by alternate.
Gonzalez v. State, No. 82A01-0809-CR-406, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2009)
Gonzalez v. State (Ind. Ct. App., May, J.)-When trial judge took plea agreement under advisement to allow the school which owned the bus defendant hit to decide whether to object, defendant’s letter to the school apologizing was a plea negotiation statement privileged under Evidence Rule 410 and its admission in evidence was reversible error.
Benefield v. State, No. 41A01-0806-CR-272, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2009)
[W]hile a defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of the instrument may be relevant to show intent to defraud, it is not an essential element of forgery.
Booker v. State, No. 45A03-0806-CR-281, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 25, 2009)
Providing defense with defendant’s inculpatory statement to officer would have been “right,” but the State’s failure to disclose was not a discovery violation, as discovery order did not include an unrecorded oral statement and State has no independent duty to provide defense with inculpatory evidence.