A court cannot grant a new trial unless the judge enters special findings as required by T.R. 59(J).
Supreme
Miller v. State, No. 08S02-1102-CR-108, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 24, 2011)
Adopts Court of Appeals holding that IC 35-50-2-2(i)’s provision limiting suspension of Class A felony child molesting sentence, with a perpetrator over 21 and a victim under 12, to portion of sentence over 30 years does not establish the minimum sentence for the offense, which is 20 years.
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of the protective order was testimony the protected person told him about it and at the same time said the order was no longer valid.
Romo v. State, No. 49S04-1009-CR-499, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 9, 2011)
“[W]ritten English translations of foreign language recordings may be admitted as substantive evidence and . . . the recordings themselves generally should be admitted and played as well.”