“Defense” to within-1,000-feet-of-park drug crime enhancement that defendant was “briefly” in the zone and no person under 18 was present is a mitigating factor like “sudden heat” which State must rebut if evidence puts it in issue.
T. Crone
McReynolds v. State, No. 82A01-0809-CR-432, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 4, 2009)
Live-in child caretaker had no more authority over the child than a babysitter, was not acting in loco parentis, and consequently could not invoke the parental discipline privilege in prosecution for battery on the child.
Lafayette v. State, No. 45A03-0803-CR-118, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 23, 2009)
In plurality opinion, concurring judge and dissenting judge take position that rape defendant puts his intent at issue for purposes of Evidence Rule 404(b) when he asserts sex was consensual; lead opinion takes contrary position.
Gibson v. Indiana Dep't of Correction, No. 49A04-0803-CV-165, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 29, 2008)
The Sex and Violent Offender Registry statute does not violate sections 12 and 23 of Article 1 of the Indiana Constitution; in addition, the registry statute consistently requires lifetime registration by some but not all violent offenders.