Published by the Indiana Judicial Center
Modifies probation condition requiring polygraph exam.
Testifying defendant may be impeached with his failure to explain his innocence to the police after he is charged but prior to his receiving Miranda warnings, under the Miranda-based Doyle v. Ohio decisions; Indiana’s law does not offer more protection than the federal Doyle cases.
Describes split in Court of Appeals cases as to whether suspended or other non-executed portions of a sentence count the same as incarceration portions of sentence in Appellate Rule 7(B) sentence appropriateness analysis.
Officer reasonably concluded that car approached by armed robbery suspect might have been suspect’s car and exigent circumstances justified officer’s opening vehicle door wider to check for accomplices inside.
Juror who asked a witness a question during a recess should have been examined by the court and parties as provided in Jury Rule 24, but any error in not following the Rule was harmless in light of court’s remedy of having the witness recalled and posing the individual juror’s recess question to the witness in the presence of the entire jury during trial.
Jane Seigel, Executive Director
Michael J. McMahon, Director of Research
Amanda Wishin, Staff Attorney
30 South Meridian Street, Suite 900
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Case Clips are selected decisions of the Indiana appellate courts abstracted for judges by the Indiana Judicial Center. The full text of Indiana opinions may be retrieved from the Indiana Judicial System website at courts.IN.gov/opinions.
The Judicial Center is the staff agency for the Judicial Conference of Indiana and serves Indiana judges and court personnel by providing educational programs, publications, and research assistance.
All content © 2013 Indiana Judicial Center courts.IN.gov