Defendant had no opportunity to object to the court’s declaration of a mistrial and accordingly cannot be said to have consented to it by failure to timely object, but the repeated improper comments by defense counsel in trial warranted the trial court’s declaration of a mistrial without defense consent, under the manifest necessity standard.
Supreme
In re C.G., No. 49S04-1101-JT-4, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Oct. 11, 2011).
Adopts the factors set out in State of West Virginia ex rel. Jaenette H., 529 S.E.2d at 877 (W.Va. 2000) for trial courts to determine whether an incarcerated parent is permitted to attend a hearing on the termination of his or her parental rights.
Putnam Co. Sheriff v. Price, No. 49A02-1009-DR-105, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Oct. 6, 2011).
County Sheriff Department “that neither owns, maintains, nor controls a county road” does not have a common law duty to warn the public of known hazardous conditions of that road.
Barnes v. State, No. 82S05-1007-CR-343, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 20, 2011).
On rehearing, “we hold that the Castle Doctrine is not a defense to the crime of battery or other violent acts on a police officer,” and “[w]e also emphasize that this holding does not alter, indeed says nothing, about the statutory and constitutional boundaries of legal entry into the home or any other place.”
Turner v. State, No. 49S00-0912-CR-565, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 28, 2011).
Indiana Rule of Evidence 702(b) permitted admission of “tool mark” expert’s “identification” opinion that marks on unfired cartridge found in defendant’s girlfriend’s home matched marks on fired cartridge casings found at murder scene, even though the firearm which might have made the “tool marks” was never found.