Edwards v. State, No. 20A-CR-42, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 30, 2020).

When there is no nexus between the illegal possession and another crime, courts must look to the time of acquisition to determine whether multiple possessions constitute a single episode of criminal conduct.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Butler v. State, No. 19A-MI-5, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2019).

The trial court properly ordered the forfeiture of defendant’s car because the 2018 amendments to Indiana’s civil-forfeiture scheme were procedural in nature and do not constitute an ex post facto law; defendant failed to establish that the seizure of the car was in any way improper.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Risinger v. State, No. 19A-CR-281, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 9, 2019).

Defendant’s statement, “I’m done talking,” was an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent pursuant to Miranda, and the detectives’ continuation of questioning thereafter was a failure to honor that right.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Strickholm v. Anonymous Nurse Practitioner, No. 19A-MI-696, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 21, 2019).

It is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an appointment to check blood pressure and review of those results was considered medical care to delay the statute of limitations.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

McAnalley v. State, No. 18A-CR-1099, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 18, 2019).

Defendant is permitted to stipulate to his status as a felon in a trial for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. When a passenger in an automobile is arrested on a warrant, search of the passenger compartment is permissible under both the Indiana and federal constitutions, based on suspicious behavior and/or admission by the passenger of ownership of contraband in the passenger side of the vehicle.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion