The trial court properly denied defendant’s request to question a juror after the member divulged information relevant for voir dire. Defendant was convicted by a fair and impartial jury; juror disclosed relevant information voluntarily at her earliest opportunity and then assured the parties that she could still be a juror.
P. Riley
Springfield v. State, No. 18A-CR-1317, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 28, 2018
Double jeopardy principles were violated when defendant was convicted and punished for the enhancement of possessing a firearm based on the same behavior that formed the basis of his unlawful possession of a firearm by a SVF conviction.
Barber v. State, No. 18A-CR-308, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 5, 2018).
Indiana’s sentence modification statute is available only to convicted persons who are currently executing a sentence.
In re Guardianship of Luis, No. 18A-GU-1312, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 8, 2018).
A trial court is required to make findings on special immigrant juvenile status in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J).
Stone v. State, No. 34A02-1710-CR-2514, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 10, 2018).
The State violated Indiana’s Double Jeopardy Clause when it brought two separate charges of dealing in synthetic drugs based solely upon the fact that the packets containing the spice bore different brand names.