Under the particular circumstances, autopsy report was not prepared for “primary purpose” of future investigation or prosecution, and therefore was not testimonial hearsay.
Supreme
Ammons v. State, No. 45S03-1604-CR-167, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Apr. 5, 2016).
Requiring an Indiana resident, who recently moved to Indiana from another state, to register as a sex offender is not an ex post facto violation when offender was already required to register in another jurisdiction.
City of Beech Grove v. Beloat, No. 49S02-1604-CT-165, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 5, 2016).
“City failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the challenged act or omission was a policy decision made by consciously balancing risks and benefits. Thus, the City was not entitled to summary judgment on the question of discretionary function immunity under the [Indiana Tort Claims Act].”
Eckelbarger v. State, No. 90S02-1603-CR-157, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., March 29, 2016).
Consecutive 16-year sentences for both delivering and manufacturing methamphetamine were inappropriate where evidence of manufacturing was seized pursuant to search warrant for State-sponsored delivery offenses.
State v. Taylor, No. 46S04-1509-CR-552, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., March 30, 2016).
Police eavesdropping on attorney-client conference was reprehensible and presumptively prejudicial, but under the circumstances did not necessarily warrant suppression of all testimony from officers who invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege about the eavesdropping. Presumption of prejudice was rebuttable if State could prove beyond reasonable doubt that each witness’s anticipated testimony was untainted by the misconduct and do so without implicating witnesses’ Fifth Amendment privilege.