Segar v. State, No. 49A02-1003-CR-269, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 1, 2010)

Defendant did not waive his objection to the admission of the marijuana found on his person when he earlier made no objection to officers’ “foundational” testimony that material in his pocket “resembled” and “was believed to be” marijuana.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Kocielko v. State, No. 20A03-1002-CR-218, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 2, 2010)

Defendant convicted of both deviate sexual conduct and fondling has the fondling conviction reversed, under the rule that multiple convictions cannot be imposed for the “same injurious consequences sustained by the same victim during a single confrontation.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Curtis v. State, No. 20A03-1002-CR-110, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 19, 2010)

“[A] person’s unfitness to operate a vehicle . . . is to be determined by considering his capability as a whole, not component by component, such that impairment of any of the three abilities necessary for the safe operation of a vehicle equals impairment within the meaning of I.C. § 9-30-5-2.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Owens v. State, No. 29A02-1002-CR-390, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2010)

Policeman’s testimony that defendant had not called him, after the officer left his card on defendant’s door with a note asking defendant to call, did not violate defendant’s Fifth Amendment right.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Cox v. State, No. 79A04-0912-CR-741, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2010)

When child took the stand and testified he knew the difference between telling the truth and a lie and was subject to cross-examination but otherwise provided no testimony about the alleged molesting, and when there had been no testimony from mental health experts that testifying in court would traumatize the child, it was reversible error to admit videotape of child’s statement to a prosecutor’s interviewer about the alleged crimes.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion