Entrapment defense failed due to failure to prove alleged criminal conduct was the product of law enforcement action.
Supreme
Wesheit v. State, No. 10S00-1307-DP-492, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 18, 2015).
Defendant failed to show that denial of his challenges for cause to prospective jurors and his consequent exhaustion of his peremptories had the result of forcing him to accept objectionable jurors. Trial court properly determined that juror’s wife’s note given to jurors with cookies she baked did not require a mistrial. Opinion also rejects contention that capital jury’s failure to list mitigating circumstances indicated the jury failed to consider the mitigation evidence.
Brummett v. State, No. 49S02-1502-CR-69, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 11, 2015).
Transfer granted to confirm that recent decision did not alter the doctrine of fundamental error.
Study v. State, No. 06S04-1407-CR-461, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 4, 2015).
“[T]he concealment-tolling provision under Indiana Code § 35-41-4-2(h)(2) requires a positive act by the defendant that is calculated to conceal the fact that a crime has been committed.”
Cleary v. State, No. 45S03-1404-CR-295, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 15, 2015).
Jury reached guilty verdicts on lesser charges but hung on greater charges; court did not enter judgment on the guilty verdicts; “[i]t is unequivocal that if the trial court had entered a judgment of conviction for those lesser-included misdemeanors, Indiana Code § 35-41-4-3(a) would have barred the State from retrying Cleary”; concludes “that Indiana Code § 35-41-4-3(a)’s implied acquittal provision does not apply when the jury returns a guilty verdict on a lesser-included offense but deadlocks on the greater charge.”