Procedures for waiver of juvenile’s rights were adequately followed, but “JUVENILE WAIVER” form used by police is criticized.
Supreme
Curtis v. State, No. 49S02-1010-CR-620, __ N.E.2d __ (June 14, 2011)
“We hold that pending criminal charges do not violate a defendant’s right to due process if (1) the trial court has not involuntarily committed the defendant and (2) the trial court has not made an appropriate finding that the defendant will never be restored to competency. We also hold that . . . the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C).”
Johnson v. State, No. 53S01-1106-CR-335, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 8, 2011)
A judge who receives complaints from a defendant that a public defender, known to have been dilatory in other situations, is neglecting the case “must at the very least receive assurances from the public defender’s office that the complaint has been adequately addressed.”
Sloan v. State, No. 18S04-1009-CR-502, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 1, 2011)
“[O]nce concealment has been established, statutes of limitations for criminal offenses are tolled under Indiana Code section 35-41-4-2(h) (2008) until a prosecuting authority becomes aware or should have become aware of sufficient evidence to charge the defendant.”
Barnes v. State, No. 82S05-1007-CR-343, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 12, 2011)
Affirms trial court refusal to instruct on right to resist illegal police entry of home, as “a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”