• 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

Lovett v. State, No. 20A04-1506-MI-591, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2015).

December 14, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker, M. Barnes

Indiana’s Sex Offender Registration Act did not violate ex post facto clause of the Indiana Constitution as applied to defendant. SORA did not exist at the time of defendant’s 1991 conviction in Washington, but Washington law imposed similar registration requirements; thus, applying SORA after defendant moved here in 2003 imposed no new punishment.

Kunberger v. State, No. 02A03-1505-CR-304, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2015).

December 7, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Convictions by open guilty plea for criminal confinement, strangulation, and domestic battery did not violate double jeopardy under the actual evidence test. Defendant could not show that all three offenses were based on a single act of strangulation, because his factual basis admitted only the bare elements of each offense, and facts in the probable cause affidavit showed a time span and course of conduct that could have provided separate and distinct facts for each offense.

Pattison v. State, No. 27A05-1411-CR-517, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2015).

December 7, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Jury instruction in OWI was fundamental error, when it impermissibly shifted burden from State to Defendant on the only contested element.

Pribie v. State, No. 12A02-1412-CR-836, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2015).

December 7, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

“Source of physical evidence” exception to Evidence Rule 412 (rape shield) does not apply when State presents no physical evidence for Defendant to rebut. Excluding evidence did not prevent defendant from describing his version of events and cross-examining witnesses accordingly. Bailiff’s communication with jury was clearly improper, but harmless. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the jury heard no extraneous information, based on weighing conflicting accounts of events in deliberations.

Whitely v. State, No. 49A02-1501-CR-50, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2015).

December 7, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Inventory search of vehicle was not unreasonable despite officers’ significant deviation from written department policy for such searches; breach of policy, without more, did not show that the inventory was pretext for an investigatory search.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 161
  • Page 162
  • Page 163
  • Page 164
  • Page 165
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • 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