• 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

State v. Stevens, No. 62A01-1406-CR-268, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 12, 2015).

June 19, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

IDACS criminal-history data that defendant had out-of-state methamphetamine conviction, though inaccurate, gave probable cause to arrest him for attempted possession of a precursor; police had no duty to confirm accuracy of the data.

Lewis v. State, No. 45S00-1312-LW-512, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. June 17, 2015).

June 19, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

LWOP sentencing order was deficient for failure to include judge’s personal statement that LWOP was the appropriate sentence.

Kemper v. State, No. 15A01-1408-CR-340, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. June 17, 2015).

June 19, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

State presented insufficient evidence that defendant conspired to commit robbery; alleged co-conspirator’s guilty plea to conspiracy could not be considered as substantive evidence against defendant, and remaining evidence was insufficient to show agreement to rob.

Ammons v. State, No. 45A03-1411-CR-394, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. June 17, 2015).

June 19, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes, P. Riley

Sex Offender Registration Act was not unconstitutional ex post facto punishment as applied, even though defendant’s offenses were in 1988 and SORA was not enacted until 1994; the seven Mendoza-Martinez factors, including seventh “excessiveness” element that is “accorded special weight,” balanced in favor of finding registration non-punitive.

Ohio v. Clark, No. 13-1352, ___ U.S. ___ (June 18, 2015).

June 19, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: A. Scalia, C. Thomas, S. Alito, SCOTUS

Three-year-old’s report of abuse to his preschool teachers was not testimonial hearsay, and therefore did not violate Confrontation Clause when admitted at trial. Neither the child—nor the teachers, despite their mandatory reporting obligations—had the “primary purpose” to create substitute for trial testimony or assist in prosecuting defendant, but rather to respond to ongoing child-abuse emergency by identifying and ending the threat to the child.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 174
  • Go to page 175
  • Go to page 176
  • Go to page 177
  • Go to page 178
  • 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