« Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court posts one this morning, re grandparent visitation | Main | Law - More on: After 8 years, Michigan courts are still litigating the meaning of the November 2004 constitutional amendment re same sex marriage »
Thursday, March 07, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 8 NFP)
For publication opinions today (2):
In Joseph Matheny v. State of Indiana , a 16-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:
Joseph Matheny appeals his conviction for class D felony auto theft. When Matheny was being arrested, a police officer asked him where he lived, and Matheny told the officer. At trial, Matheny’s response was used as evidence against him because his residence was close to the location from which the car was stolen. On appeal, he argues that his statement was obtained in violation of his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting it. He also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing his tendered jury instructions regarding the presumption of innocence. We conclude that the police officer did not violate Matheny’s constitutional rights by asking him for his address, and therefore the trial court did not err in admitting his statement at trial. We further conclude that although the trial court erred in refusing one of Matheny’s tendered jury instructions, the error was harmless. Therefore, we affirm.In Marcus Willis v. State of Indiana , a 4-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:
Marcus Willis (“Willis”) appeals his conviction for Criminal Trespass, as a Class A misdemeanor. We reverse.NFP civil opinions today (4):
Willis presents two issues for review, one of which is dispositive: whether there is sufficient evidence to support his conviction. * * *
From this testimony and Deputy Harper’s earlier testimony that she had observed Willis’s name on the list, the fact-finder could reasonably infer that some event occurred that caused Willis’s name and identifying information to be placed on a no-trespassing list. This list was available to security officers. However, there is a complete absence of evidence that Willis was aware of this list or that he had otherwise been denied entrance to the property in a manner required by the relevant statute.
The State must prove every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 361 (1970). Here, the State failed to prove a material element of Criminal Trespass within the meaning of Indiana Code section 35-43-2-2(a)(1), specifically that Willis had been “denied entry” as defined therein. As such, the State failed to show that he willfully trespassed on the property of another.
NFP criminal opinions today (4):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 7, 2013 11:20 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions