• 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

Lewis v. State, No. 45S00-1601-LW-32, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 4, 2016).

October 11, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

The imposition of a sentence of life without parole was reversible error by the trial court because the sole aggravating factor supporting the sentence was not determined by the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt during the penalty phase. The Supreme Court concurred with defendant’s initial request, and in the interests of judicial economy, exercised their appellate prerogative and resentenced him to a total term of 88 years.

Sturdivant v. State, 08A02-1601-CR-186, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2016).

October 3, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Trial courts are in the best position to assess the competency of criminal defendants and the knowingness and intelligence of waivers of the right to counsel, and that determination will only be reversed if it was clearly erroneous.

Bell v. State, No. 49S02-1609-CR-00501, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 29, 2016).

October 3, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: G. Slaughter, S. David, Supreme

A trial court must consider a defendant’s ability to pay before entering a restitution order after hearing testimony of inability to pay without rebutting evidence.

Griffith v. State, No. 27S00-1503-LW-145, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 29, 2016).

October 3, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Supreme Court upholds murder, robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery conviction and sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole (LWOP).

Herron v. State, No. 71A04-1602-CR-306, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2016).

October 3, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Where the state charged the defendant with obstruction of justice citing the wrong provision of that statute, defendant’s motion for directed verdict should have been granted.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 130
  • Go to page 131
  • Go to page 132
  • Go to page 133
  • Go to page 134
  • 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