• 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

Gavin v. State, No. 79A02-1501-CR-27, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 11, 2015).

August 14, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Shooting suspect’s statement that his gun was in his car was admissible under public-safety exception to Miranda; police feared that suspect’s 3-year-old child, who was also in the car, might get to the gun.

Akins v. State, No. 49A02-1412-CR-869, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 31, 2015).

August 7, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden

Restitution award was abuse of discretion; there was no evidence that the injury for which restitution was sought was caused by, or even connected with, the defendant.

Smart v. State, No. 29A02-1412-CR-887, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 4, 2015).

August 7, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Defendant’s admission to injecting “methamphetamine,” without more, was insufficient to prove that he injected the legend drug “methamphetamine hydrochloride”; there was no evidence or basis for judicial notice that the two substances were the same

Buford v. State, No. 20A05-1408-CR-392, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 24, 2015).

July 31, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Search warrant was invalid; uncorroborated anonymous tip of drug dealing at defendant’s home, plus police smelling burnt marijuana and seeing unspecified amount of marijuana “shake” on table in the home, did not establish probable cause of drug dealing.

Kowalskey v. State, No. 32A01-1503-CR-99, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2015).

July 31, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Defendant’s conduct did not waive his right to counsel. His oral and written requests for the trial court to compel discovery were not obstreperous, and trial court had neither adequately advised defendant of the dangers of self-representation nor made necessary findings on whether his conduct under the circumstances constituted knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 168
  • Go to page 169
  • Go to page 170
  • Go to page 171
  • Go to page 172
  • 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