• 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

Curtis v. State, No. 18A02-1501-CR-59, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2015).

August 28, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Robbing a pharmacist of painkillers, robbing a pharmacy technician of her car keys, then stealing the technician’s car parked outside the pharmacy, were separate and distinct criminal acts and did not amount to a “single larceny.”

Gross v. State, No. 41A01-1411-CR-467, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 14, 2015).

August 21, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb, P. Mathias

Due process required dismissal of charges against incompetent defendant, when he had been certified unlikely to be restored to competence and had been committed for longer than his maximum possible sentence less credit time.

Steele v. State, No. 49A02-1408-CR-585, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 18, 2015).

August 21, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Domestic-battery victim’s hearsay statement to forensic nurse examiner was admissible as statement for medical diagnosis or treatment. Sentencing order properly “merged” multiple counts, without entering conviction on them, to avoid double-jeopardy violation.

Guffey v. State, No. 21A01-1410-CR-446, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 19, 2015).

August 21, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, R. Pyle

Defendant’s convictions on five counts violated actual-evidence test for double jeopardy—though the court “merged” Counts II and IV into other counts, jeopardy still attached because it had previously entered judgment on them; and Counts III and V should also have been vacated and merged into Count I. But trial court could properly impose a longer sentence for the remaining Count I on remand, as long as it did not exceed the aggregate consecutive sentences previously imposed.
Additionally, sentencing order was defective for entering a habitual-offender sentence separately instead of applying as an enhancement to an underlying sentence.

Washington v. State, No. 49A02-1405-CR-306, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 20, 2015).

August 21, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Under recent SCOTUS decision in Rodriguez v. U.S., defendant’s traffic stop was not unreasonably extended by drug-dog sniff or by officer’s questions.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 166
  • Go to page 167
  • Go to page 168
  • Go to page 169
  • Go to page 170
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 323
  • 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 © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs