A court cannot grant a new trial unless the judge enters special findings as required by T.R. 59(J).
R. Shepard
State v. Joslyn, No. 49S04-1102-CR-85, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 16, 2011)
When protective order notice was left at subject’s home but the return of service did not indicate that notice was also mailed to last address as required by Trial Rule 4.1, subject’s statement to police and admission at trial that he received the notice in combination with evidence of T.R. 4.1 notice attempt were sufficient to support his invasion of privacy conviction.
State v. Tharp, No. 49S02-1005-CR-256, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 16, 2011)
Actual notice of a protective order sufficient for a conviction of invasion of privacy need not come from an agent of the state, but in this case conviction is reversed because the only evidence defendant knew of the protective order was testimony the protected person told him about it and at the same time said the order was no longer valid.
Galloway v. State, No. 33S01-1004-CR-163, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Dec. 22, 2010)
Reverses bench trial rejection of insanity defense because, despite “nonconflicting expert and lay opinion that defendant . . .was insane, the trial court rejected the insanity defense after concluding that the defendant could continue to be a danger to society because of an inadequate State mental health system.”
Nicoson v. State, No. 32S04–1003–CR–150, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Dec. 15, 2010)
Five year enhancement for use of a deadly weapon added to sentence for criminal confinement while armed with a deadly weapon was permitted by statute and by double jeopardy protection.