In a criminal jury trial where the State presents evidence of a greater number of separate criminal offenses than charged and does not designate the specific act or acts on which it relies for conviction, a general unanimity instruction is insufficient. The jury should be instructed that they must either unanimously agree that the defendant committed the same act or acts or that the defendant committed all the acts alleged. However, where multiple similar acts are part of one continuous episode, a special unanimity instruction is not required.
N. Vaidik
Brook v. State, No. 22A-CR-2110, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2023).
When a defendant is charged with a crime elevated based upon a prior infraction, the trial court is not required to bifurcate the proceedings. Because Lorazepam’s status as a legend drug was not an issue of fact—it was identified in court by a name specifically designated as a controlled substance by the Indiana Code—the trial court did not erroneously invade the province of the jury by giving instructions that created a mandatory presumption indicating that the substance was classified as a legend drug.
Plato v. State, No. 23A-PC-452, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 25, 2023).
A search warrant which authorizes law enforcement to search for “paperwork” related to a suspected crime, may include seizure of a computer.
Kansal v. Krieter, 22A-CT-2646, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 10, 2023).
Sexual misconduct claims against healthcare providers are not subject to the Medical Malpractice Act, but in a case where the doctor and the patient agree as to the touching that occurred but disagree as to the purpose of the touching, application of the Medical Malpractice Act and presentation to a medical-review panel might be appropriate.
Hessler v. State, No. 22A-CR-989, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 26, 2023).
Because the new substantive double jeopardy framework established in Wadle constituted a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions, it applies retroactively to cases that were not yet final at the time our Supreme Court adopted Wadle. Because Wadle replaced the common-law double jeopardy rules, the common law rule that an offense cannot be enhanced based on the same injury that established another offense for which the defendant had already been punished, is no longer applicable.