When seeking an interlocutory appeal, the State must formally move for a stay of the proceedings to properly toll the time limit set forth Criminal Rule 4(C).
Supreme
Mullins v. State, No. 20S-CR-451, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jul. 6, 2020).
Defendant’s 24½-year sentence, based on multiple controlled buys of methamphetamine over a two-week period and the resulting traffic stop, which uncovered additional contraband, was inappropriate.
Clark v. Mattar, No. 20S-CT-109, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 9, 2020).
When juror stated he did not want to serve as a juror, had a favorable impression of doctors, and stated repeatedly that he could not and would not be able to assess non-economic damages, he should have been struck for cause; a new trial is appropriate.
McCain v. State, No. 20S-CR-281, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 30, 2020).
Trial court’s comments disagreeing with the jury’s verdict were insufficient to taint the sentencing decision, and the sentence was not inappropriate given the nature of the crime and defendant’s demonstrated character
Hardin v. State, No. 20S-CR-418, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 23, 2020).
Based on the high degree of law enforcement concern and moderate law-enforcement needs, both the Fourth Amendment and the Indiana Constitution, permit police, armed with a warrant to search a home, to search a vehicle located in the home’s curtilage when officers possess knowledge that the vehicle is either actually owned or under the control and dominion of the premises owner or resident or, alternatively, those vehicles which appear, based on objectively reasonable indicia present at the time of the search, to be so controlled.