Benefield v. State, No. 41A01-0806-CR-272, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2009)

[W]hile a defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of the instrument may be relevant to show intent to defraud, it is not an essential element of forgery.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Taylor v. State, No. 49A02-0809-CR-795, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2009)

When the defendant agreed to go to the station for questioning about another matter, he had already received his ticket for driving without his seatbelt, so the subsequent search of his person made for the safety of the officer who would drive him to the station did not violate the Seatbelt Enforcement Act. But because defendant had not agreed to be driven to the station by the police for the questioning, the search of his person was unreasonable under Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

State v. Manuwal, No. 50S05-0805-CR-269, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Apr. 8, 2009)

The operating while intoxicated offense applies to an individual driving on his own private property.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Graham v. State, No. 03S04-0809-CR-00507, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Apr. 8, 2009)

Evidence that the defendant did not offer his hands behind his back to be cuffed was not sufficient to prove he forcibly resisted law enforcement.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Chacon v. Jones-Schilds, No. 02A05-0808-CV-484, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 8, 2009)

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding proposed evidence of the lack of a recording of an incident at a jail (and the corresponding negative inference therefrom), because the proponent of the evidence failed to comply with the court’s discovery and pretrial orders.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion