• 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

Garcia v. State, No. 49S05-1505-CR-335, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Jan. 21, 2016).

January 25, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Searching contents of pill container, which had already been seized incident to lawful arrest, was reasonable under the Indiana Constitution.

State v. Hancock, No. 39A05-1506-CR-633, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2016).

January 25, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Elements of Ohio residential burglary offense were not “substantially similar” to Indiana offense, and therefore did not establish serious violent felon (SVF) status.

Rondeau v. State, No. 49A02-1505-PC-427, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2016).

January 15, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying some requests for subpoenas, despite not issuing “a finding on the record” under P-C.R. 1(9)(b); subpoenas either were not specific enough to establish proposed witnesses’ relevance, or relevance was only to matters available at trial or on direct appeal.

Hurst v. Florida, No. 14-7505, ___ U.S. ___ (Jan. 12, 2016).

January 15, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. Alito, S. Breyer, S. Sotomayor, SCOTUS

Florida’s death-penalty statutory scheme, under which judge must find aggravating circumstance justifying death and jury’s sentencing recommendation of death or life without parole is only advisory, violates Sixth Amendment jury right.

Beasley v. State, No. 49S02-1601-CR-20, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Jan. 14, 2016).

January 15, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

Trial court acted within its discretion under Evid. R. 804(b)(3) to admit murder victim’s hearsay statement that he shot at defendant the night before as a “statement against interest”; statement was unambiguous and had a great “tendency … to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability,” even though declarant believed he had acted in self-defense.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 158
  • Go to page 159
  • Go to page 160
  • Go to page 161
  • Go to page 162
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 328
  • 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