Ervin v. State, No. 29A05-1109-CR-454, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 30, 2012

Trial court properly concluded that evidence should not be suppressed as Ind. Code § 9-30-2-2 was not implicated. The statute provides that an officer may not arrest a person “for a violation of an Indiana law regulating the use and operation of a motor vehicle on an Indiana highway” unless the officer is in uniform or a marked police vehicle, but defendant was not arrested for violating a law regulating the use of a motor vehicle.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Blueford v. Arkansas, No. 10–1320, 566 U.S. ____ (May 24, 2012).

The jury foreperson’s report that the jury was unanimous regarding the charges of capital murder and first-degree murder in his favor was not a final resolution when the trial ended in a mistrial, and so the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrying defendant on those charges.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Adams v. State, No. 49A05-1107-CR-372,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 24, 2012).

The definition of mature stalks of marijuana is not unconstitutionally vague in light of the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Lewis v. State, No. 40A01-1106-CR-276, __ N.E.2d _ (Ind. Ct. App., May 14, 2012).

“Can I get a lawyer?” was an unequivocal request for an attorney under Miranda.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Jones v. State, No. 49A02-1109-CR-853, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2012).

Venue lay in county where victims resided when defendant violated the no-contact order by phoning them.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion