• 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

Osmanov v. State, No. 35A04-1412-PC-568, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 22, 2015).

July 23, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, R. Pyle

Trial court improperly denied PCR summarily by taking judicial notice of prior guilty-plea proceedings; they had not been submitted as evidence in support of summary disposition under P-C.R. 1(4)(g) and were not part of the “pleadings” that could be considered under P-C.R. 1(4)(f).

State v. Terrell, ___ N.E.3d ___, No. 55A01-1501-CR-9 (Ind. Ct. App. July 10, 2015).

July 16, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Contraband found in probationer’s home was admissible; probationer waived search and seizure rights and agreed to “reasonable” searches as condition of probation, and search was not unreasonable (applying Vanderkolk v. State, 32 N.E.3d 775 (Ind. June 9, 2015)).

Seal v. State, ___ N.E.3d ___, No. 48A02-1410-CR-775 (Ind. Ct. App. July 15, 2015).

July 16, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

State’s inadvertent failure to preserve audio recordings of victims’ initial field interviews and subsequent follow-up interviews did not violate defendant’s rights; no law requires recording of victim interviews, and police did not intentionally sabotage or destroy the recordings they had attempted to make.

Hall v. State, No. 49S05-1412-CR-728, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 2, 2015).

July 9, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, S. David, Supreme

Trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel discovery, even if in violation of the Sixth Amendment, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wertz v. State, No. 48A04-1409-CR-427, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 7, 2015).

July 9, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

“GPS device is similar in nature to a computer or cell phone, and that such a device cannot be treated as a ‘container’ that may be searched pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.”

  • « 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 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