• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Categories
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Juvenile
  • Courts
    • Supreme
    • Appeals
    • Tax
    • SCOTUS
    • 7th Circuit
  • Judges

Case Clips

Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services

Criminal

Barcroft v. State, No. 49A05-1704-CR-844, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 19, 2017).

December 29, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown, E. Najam

Trial court erred in finding defendant guilty but mentally ill when it rejected the findings of three mental-health experts and relied on demeanor evidence that had no probative value on the question of her sanity.

Jones v. State, No. 84S05-1712-CR-741, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind.,Dec. 19, 2017).

December 29, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Abandonment is an allowable defense for both attempted robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery, but it must be voluntary and occur after the “prohibited conduct” and before the “underlying crime” has been committed or becomes inevitable.

Johnson v. State, No. 32S05-1707-CR-469, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 21, 2017).

December 29, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

The state must prove that each of the three prior unrelated felony convictions meet the ten-year requirement in order to have a person sentenced as a habitual offender under Ind. Code 35-50-2-8(d).

Calvin v. State, No. 02S03-1709-CR-611 , __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 21, 2017).

December 29, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, M. Massa, Supreme

Despite an argument that it leads to an absurd result, a level 4 burglary conviction could not be enhanced with a habitual-offender finding because defendant’s two prior out-of-state convictions must be treated as Level 6 felonies under Ind. Code 35-50-2-8(b).

Fields v. State, No. 43A03-1704-CR-856, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2017).

December 29, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss charges against him because the arresting officer was acting as a de facto officer and his failure to take the statutory oath was a technical defect.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 104
  • Go to page 105
  • Go to page 106
  • Go to page 107
  • Go to page 108
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 325
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About

Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.

Subscribe
  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Archive

Copyright © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs