Defendant found incompetent to stand trial was not entitled to have counsel present during an insanity defense psychiatric examination by the State’s mental health expert.
P. Mathias
Marley v. State, No. 15A01-1403-CR-127, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 11, 2014).
Based on legislative policy in savings clauses for new penal code, determines not to consider new code penalties in evaluating appropriateness of sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B).
Miller v. Federal Express, Corp., No. 49A02-1307-PL-619, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 4, 2014)
Defendants were immune from suit under the federal Communications Decency Act as “providers of an interactive computer service.”
Mesa v. State, No. 36A01-13080MI-362, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 25, 2014).
Summary judgment procedure applies to forfeiture actions.
Hicks v. State, No. 82A01-1306-CR-256, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 11, 2014).
When “basic questions” asked by police in “pre-interview” did not result in a confession, there was no violation of Missouri v. Seibert’s rule that police cannot purposefully withhold Miranda warnings to get a confession and then secure a Miranda waiver, based on the first confession, before questioning to get a second confession.