Thursday, May 02, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 3 NFP)
For publication opinions today (2):
In Dekuita Steen v. State of Indiana, a 7-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:
Dekuita Steen appeals her Class D felony theft conviction. She contends that the trial court erred in admitting a loss-prevention officer’s testimony concerning security tags and store labels into evidence because it was inadmissible hearsay and there is insufficient evidence to sustain her conviction. Finding that the evidence was properly admitted and the evidence is sufficient, we affirm. * * *In Johann Schmidt v. State of Indiana, a 12-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:
Steen contends that the trial court erred in admitting the loss-prevention officer’s testimony concerning the security tags and store labels that were on the clothing because it was inadmissible double hearsay. * * *
Steen argues that both the security tags and store labels on the clothing and Hadley’s testimony about the tags and labels constitute hearsay. We disagree. * * *
Since the security tags and store labels inside the clothing were not out-of-court assertions admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, they did not constitute hearsay evidence.
As for Hadley’s testimony about the clothing labels, the trial court stated that Hadley was “testifying to what he observed,” and we agree. A witness may testify to what he observed as long as it is based on his personal knowledge of the matter.
In this interlocutory appeal, appellant-defendant Johann Schmidt appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss two counts of Theft, a class C felony, that were filed in Howard County. Schmidt contends that those charges were part of an earlier investigation in Miami County and that he was previously subjected to prosecution in Miami County on those charges. Thus, Schmidt maintains that the Howard County charges must be dismissed in accordance with the Successive Prosecution Statute, Indiana Code section 35-41-4-4.NFP civil opinions today (0):
The record shows that the Howard County prosecutor properly filed charges against Schmidt as to the offenses that were committed in that county, and the Miami County charges did not relate to the Howard County offenses. Therefore, the successive prosecution statute was not violated, and we conclude that the trial court properly denied Schmidt’s motion to dismiss.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and we remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
NFP criminal opinions today (3):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 2, 2013 10:47 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions