When, as in this child molesting case, “evidence is presented of a greater number of separate criminal offenses than the defendant is charged with,” “the State may in its discretion designate a specific act (or acts) on which it relies to prove a particular charge,” but “if the State decides not to so designate, then the jurors should be instructed that in order to convict the defendant they must either unanimously agree that the defendant committed the same act or acts or that the defendant committed all of the acts described by the victim and included within the time period charged.”
Supreme
In Re Subpoena to Crisis Connection, Inc., No. 19S05-1012-CR-678, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2011)
“[T]he three-step test for the discoverability of information outlined in State v. Cline (In re WTHR-TV) . . . is not reached when information is protected by an unqualified privilege unless a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights would be violated by enforcing the privilege.” Here, defendant had no Due Process or Sixth Amendment right to avoid the statutory victim advocate privilege, which prevented discovery of the records of a nongovernmental counseling agency.
Crawford v. State, No. 49S05-1106-CR-370, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2011)
“[T]he three-step test for the discoverability of information outlined in State v. Cline (In re WTHR-TV)” applies here to non-privileged video taken by a private entity.
J.M. v. M.A., No. 20S04-1012-CV-676, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2011)
Because the statutes are “explicit that in order for a court to rescind a paternity affidavit, paternity testing must exclude the man as the biological father,” “[t]he parties’ words or agreement amongst the parties cannot supplant the statutory requirements.”
D.M. v. State, No. 49S02-1101-JV-11, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind., June 22, 2011)
Procedures for waiver of juvenile’s rights were adequately followed, but “JUVENILE WAIVER” form used by police is criticized.