Evidence was insufficient to convict defendants of felony murder in the course of burglarizing a home they thought was unoccupied; they were unarmed and did not engage in any dangerously violent of threatening conduct that was clearly the mediate or immediate cause of their co-perpetrator’s death.
R. Rucker
Anderson v. Gaudin, No. 07S01-1505-PL-284, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 1, 2015).
“[U]nder the Home Rule Act, boards of county commissioners are authorized to amend a fire protection district, even if such amendment dissolves the district.”
Sampson v. State, No. 87S01-1410-CR-684, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., July 30, 2015).
Bar on “vouching” testimony under Evid. R. 704(b) and Hoglund v. State (Ind. 2012) also bars opinion testimony of whether a witness shows “signs or indicators” of having been “coached,” unless defendant opens the door by an express or implied claim of coaching. (Overruling Kindred v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) and Archer v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).)
Sistrunk v. State, No. 49S05-1410-CR-654, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. July 30, 2015).
Double jeopardy did not preclude convictions for robbery and criminal confinement.
Hall v. State, No. 49S05-1412-CR-728, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 2, 2015).
Trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel discovery, even if in violation of the Sixth Amendment, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.