Perry v. State, No. 49A05-1012-CR-774, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 22, 2011).

Admission of hospital nurse’s record of statements assault victim made to nurse, including identity of attacker, did not violate either the hearsay rule or the Crawford Confrontation Clause rule.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Sharp . State, No. 12A02-1010-CR-1188, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 19, 2011).

Defendant’s convictions for Class A child molesting and Class C child molesting, alleged to have occurred during the same 13 month period, did not violate Indiana double jeopardy under the “actual evidence test.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Butler V. State, No. 84A01-1008-CR-414, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 27, 2011)

Greer v. State’s holding, that a probationer who proceeds pro se and admits the petition need not be advised of the “pitfalls of self-representation,” applies despite decision in Hopper v. State requiring guilty plea advice of dangers of proceeding pro se and “that an attorney is usually more experienced in plea negotiations and better able to identify and evaluate any potential defenses and evidentiary or procedural problems in the prosecution’s case.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Cartwright v. State, No. 82A01-1005-CR-214, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 22, 2011)

Finds the State’s four race-neutral reasons for peremptory challenge to only African-American venireperson to have been pretextual because the trial judge made no finding which of the four reasons it relied on to reject the Batson challenge and because the State failed to “develop anything beyond the most superficial of records regarding its reasons.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Mitchell v. State, No. 49A02-1003-CR-340, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 6, 2011)

Traditional rule that a post-conviction court may not take judicial of the transcript in the original proceedings appears to have been ended by the 2010 amendment to Evidence Rule 201(b)(5) allowing judicial notice of “records of a court of this state,” but since petitioner did not request judicial notice and court did not sua sponte take it the transcript was not in evidence in the post-conviction proceeding.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion