Plea agreement was enforceable despite its misstatement that the defendant’s consecutive sentences were capped by statute. Defendant was entitled to the benefit of his plea; sentence was mistakenly capped, but not necessarily illegal.
S. David
Griffith v. State, No. 48S02-1501-CR-10, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., June 2, 2015).
Under Indiana Evidence Rule 613(b), extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement may be admitted before or after a witness is given “opportunity to explain or deny” the statement as the Rule requires, but confronting the witness first remains the “preferred method.”
Bogner v. Bogner, No. 45S04-1501-DR-23, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 28, 2015).
The best practices for conducting a summary proceeding, “would include establishing on the record: 1) affirmative agreement from the attorneys that proceedings will be conducted summarily, for those represented by counsel; 2) affirmative agreement by both clients or unrepresented litigants to summary proceedings; 3) opportunity for both parties to add any other relevant information regarding the issues in dispute before the summary proceeding is concluded or to affirm the arguments made by counsel; and 4) an advisement in advance of the hearing that either party is free to object to the form of the proceeding and request a full evidentiary hearing, upon which formal rules of evidence and procedure will be observed.”
Myers v. State, No. 76S03-1407-CR-493, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 8, 2015).
Experts unanimously agreed defendant was legally insane, but other evidence in the record supported the jury’s conclusion that he was not; as it was not shown defendant was given Miranda rights, the State could use his post-arrest silence and request for an attorney as evidence of sanity without violating his due process rights.
Moore v. State, No. 71S00-1405-LW-361, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 24, 2015).
The incredible dubiosity rule is inapplicable in the present case because the factors [1) a sole testifying witness; 2) testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion; and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence] were not present.