Kowalskey v. State, No. 32A01-1503-CR-99, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2015).

Defendant’s conduct did not waive his right to counsel. His oral and written requests for the trial court to compel discovery were not obstreperous, and trial court had neither adequately advised defendant of the dangers of self-representation nor made necessary findings on whether his conduct under the circumstances constituted knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Sampson v. State, No. 87S01-1410-CR-684, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., July 30, 2015).

Bar on “vouching” testimony under Evid. R. 704(b) and Hoglund v. State (Ind. 2012) also bars opinion testimony of whether a witness shows “signs or indicators” of having been “coached,” unless defendant opens the door by an express or implied claim of coaching. (Overruling Kindred v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) and Archer v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).)

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Sistrunk v. State, No. 49S05-1410-CR-654, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. July 30, 2015).

Double jeopardy did not preclude convictions for robbery and criminal confinement.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Ennik v. State, No. 90A02-1409-CR-664, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. July 17, 2015).

Defendant was not entitled to severance of right when alleged molestations were based on a common modus operandi and not just of similar character.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Osmanov v. State, No. 35A04-1412-PC-568, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 22, 2015).

Trial court improperly denied PCR summarily by taking judicial notice of prior guilty-plea proceedings; they had not been submitted as evidence in support of summary disposition under P-C.R. 1(4)(g) and were not part of the “pleadings” that could be considered under P-C.R. 1(4)(f).

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion