Rosales v. State, No. 48S02-1404-CR-297, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 15, 2015).

“[I]n addition to instructing the jury (correctly) on the elements of attempted murder under a theory of direct liability, the trial court gave an accomplice liability instruction that . . . failed to set forth that an accomplice must have the specific intent to kill when he or she knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another to attempt to commit murder”; the error was fundamental due both to the general verdict form which did not indicate whether the conviction was based on the direct attempt theory or the accomplice theory and to the State’s repeated erroneous assertions that specific intent to kill was not required for accomplice liability.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Jacobs v. State, No. 49S04-1403-CR-162, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 8, 2015).

Trial judge properly excluded specific instances of conduct offered to show witness’s untruthfulness.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Hitch v. State, No. 49A02-1404-CR-295, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 8, 2015).

Statutory domestic violence crime determination is a fact which increases the penalty for a crime and accordingly must be determined by the jury under the Blakely Sixth Amendment rule.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Morgan v. State, No. 49S02-1405-CR-00325, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 18, 2014).

“[W]e uphold the constitutionality of Indiana’s public intoxication statute, Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3, by reading a reasonableness standard into ‘annoys.’”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

White v. State, No. 29A05-1312-PC-641, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 29, 2014).

There is no “class-of-one” defense to criminal charges.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion