« Courts - More on Judge David Hamlton's nomination to 7th Circuit | Main | Ind. Courts - "Funds Available to Help Those In Legal Profession Who Need Mental Health or Dependency Treatment" »

Monday, November 09, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 1 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Joshua P. Lindsey v. State of Indiana , a 19-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:

In this case, we decide that the exigent circumstance of officer safety justified Officer Charles Kruse's actions in opening wider Joshua P. Lindsey's car door and visually inspecting the car's interior. Officer Kruse saw Lindsey run into a store, brandish a weapon, and leave the store heading in the direction of the car, which had its driver's side door ajar. Given these facts, it was reasonable for Officer Kruse to believe that the car may have been Lindsey's getaway car and that an accomplice, possibly also armed, may have been inside. Because the contents of the car were concealed by its tinted windows and the door was ajar, it was not unconstitutional for the officer to open the door wider and look inside. We affirm the trial court on this issue as well as those concerning jury selection and the appropriateness of Lindsey's sentence.
In Zachariah Holden v. State of Indiana , a 12-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:
Zachariah H. Holden appeals his conviction for Class B felony robbery and adjudication as a habitual offender. Holden moved for mistrial when a juror asked the State's firearms expert a question (which the expert had already answered on direct examination) outside the courtroom during a recess in the trial. Without questioning that juror outside the presence of the other jurors, the trial court put the expert back on the stand and posed the same question to the expert. Because the expert testified substantially the same both on direct examination and when put back on the stand and because the expert's communication to the juror outside the courtroom was in fact favorable to Holden, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial, and we therefore affirm.
NFP civil opinions today (1):

Constance V. Spence v. Michael J. Spence (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (0):

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 9, 2009 10:47 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions