Testifying defendant may be impeached with his failure to explain his innocence to the police after he is charged but prior to his receiving Miranda warnings, under the Miranda-based Doyle v. Ohio decisions; Indiana’s law does not offer more protection than the federal Doyle cases.
N. Vaidik
Lindsey v. State, No. 29A02-0902-CR-196, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 9, 2009)
Officer reasonably concluded that car approached by armed robbery suspect might have been suspect’s car and exigent circumstances justified officer’s opening vehicle door wider to check for accomplices inside.
Holden v. State, No. 57A03-0903-CR-111, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 9, 2009)
Juror who asked a witness a question during a recess should have been examined by the court and parties as provided in Jury Rule 24, but any error in not following the Rule was harmless in light of court’s remedy of having the witness recalled and posing the individual juror’s recess question to the witness in the presence of the entire jury during trial.
Miller v. Yedlowski, No. 49A02-0901-CV-78, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 10, 2009)
Party seeking a second extension of time to respond to summary judgment motion must do so prior to expiration of the period of the first extension.
In re Adoption of A.S., D.S., C.S., & J.S., No. 49A02-0901-CV-60, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2009)
Where parents executed consents for one person to adopt their children, then (without withdrawing the first consents) executed subsequent consents for two other people to adopt their children, neither Indiana’s adoption statutes nor public policy prohibits the subsequent consents.