Resisting efforts of several police officers to make an arrest was a single offense, not three, of resisting law enforcement, so that there was no need for a “unanimity” instruction requiring jurors to agree that a particular officer’s efforts were resisted.
N. Vaidik
Taylor v. State, No. 71A04-1001-PC-6, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 9, 2010)
Officers’ warrantless search of home to determine whether there was an additional occupant who could have fired a weapon was a valid protective sweep.
Fowler v. State, No. 49A02-0910-CR-1037, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 30, 2010)
A police booking printout was “administrative,” not investigative, and hence was admissible under the public record hearsay exception; the booking printout also was not “testimonial” under the Crawford confrontation rule.
Alves v. Old National Bank, No. 71A03-0909-CV-416, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 1, 2010)
Petitioner’s Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment was untimely because: (1) he filed it more than one year after the trial court granted summary judgment against him, and (2) his earlier appeal of that judgment did not toll the one-year limit applicable to motions brought under Rule 60(B)(1)-(4).
Ramirez v. State, No. 65A01-0911-CR-543, __ N.E.2d__ (Ind. Ct. App., May 28, 2010)
U.S. Supreme Court’s Melendez-Diaz holding does not require a change from prior Court of Appeals opinions that Dept. of Toxicology breathalyzer test certificate is not “testimonial” and hence is admissible without testimony from the tester.