The plain language of the drug-induced homicide statute, Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.5, requires the State to prove the defendant’s conduct is both the proximate cause and the actual cause of the victim’s death, and while the jury is expected to rely on its collective common sense and knowledge acquired through everyday experiences, the trial court has a duty to define for the jury words of a technical or legal meaning normally not understood by jurors unversed in the law.
M. May
State v. Pemberton, No. 21A-CR-668, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 31, 2022).
Absent specific exceptions outlined by our legislature in other statutes, acts that would be criminal offenses if committed by adults are defined by Indiana law as delinquent acts when committed by individuals under age eighteen, and Indiana law gives exclusive jurisdiction of delinquency proceedings to juvenile courts.
Murray v. State, No. 21A-CR-1495__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 11, 2022).
The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is not violated when a defendant is ordered to show their teeth to the jury because doing so is a non-testimonial physical demonstration.
Allen v. State, No. 21A-XP-368, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 25, 2022).
Under the permissive expungement statute, a trial court may deny an expungement petition after considering the nature and circumstances of the crime,and the petitioner’s character
Afanador v. State, No. 21A-CR-1000, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 28, 2022).
The State is not prohibited from using two offenses to support separate enhancements under different recidivist offender statutes when the two offenses were not part of the same res gestae.