Barnes v. State, No. 82S05-1007-CR-343, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 12, 2011)

Affirms trial court refusal to instruct on right to resist illegal police entry of home, as “a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Davis v. State, No. 45A05-1008-CR-502, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 12, 2011)

The “trial court abused its discretion when it allowed a police detective to testify as a skilled witness that the denominations of money found on the defendant were indicative of drug dealing.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Kentucky v. King, No. 09–1272, __ U.S. __ (May 16, 2011)

Exigent circumstances exception permitting warrantless search of a home when police reasonably believe criminal evidence is being destroyed within applies even though the police’s lawful knock and announce at the house door is what prompts the inhabitants to destroy the evidence.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Coleman v. State, No. 20S03-1008-CR-458, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 18, 2011)

Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy clause does not preclude State “from retrying a defendant where in the first trial the jury acquitted the defendant of murder with respect to one victim but failed to return a verdict on a charge of attempted murder with respect to another victim.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Barabas, No. 48A04-1004-CC-232, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2011)

“Mortgagee” Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) was a “mere nominee” and “bare legal title” holder without interest in the property separate from that of the original lender Irwin, and as mortgage provided for notices only to Irwin the lender, and not to MERS, MERS’s assignee Citimortgage was not entitled to have default in the foreclosure of another mortgage vacated on the basis only Irwin and not MERS received foreclosure notice.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion