“Prison mailbox rule” (prisoner mailing considered filed when given to prison authorities to be sent to court) applies to notices of direct appeal.
M. Robb
Duran v. State, No. 45A03-0811-CR-569, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 23, 2009)
Forcible entry of a third person’s apartment to apprehend arrest warrant subject did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Ind. Const. Art. I, Section 11.
Moore v. Moore, No. 49A02-0810-CV-978, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 16, 2009)
Protective order prohibiting only threats or violence but permitting contact erroneously did not address petitioner’s concerns with harassment or provide relief necessary to prevent violence or threats of violence as required by statute.
Ashworth v. State, No. 49A02-0805-CR-448, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 20, 2009)
Discusses whether detective’s opinion whether two other individuals had any “involvement” in charged crime could admissible under Evidence Rule 701 if based on “perceptions” of other officers, and notes federal opinion it could not, but does not decide as any error was harmless.
George v. State, No. 73A05-0808-CR-503, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 24, 2009)
Having a pharmacist determine the chemical composition of pills properly seized in an inventory search did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Art. 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.