• 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

Myers v. State, No. 76S03-1407-CR-493, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 8, 2015).

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

Experts unanimously agreed defendant was legally insane, but other evidence in the record supported the jury’s conclusion that he was not; as it was not shown defendant was given Miranda rights, the State could use his post-arrest silence and request for an attorney as evidence of sanity without violating his due process rights.

Schaadt v. State, No. 33A05-1409-CR-428, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 8, 2015).

April 9, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

Savings clause for 2014 penal reforms does not violate the Indiana Constitution’s Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Grady v. North Carolina, No. 14-593, __ U.S. __ (Mar. 30, 2015).

April 2, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, SCOTUS

Attachment of a GPS monitor to a recidivist sex offender without his consent is a Fourth Amendment search; as the question of the reasonableness of the GPS monitor “search” in this case was not raised, the Court does not address it.

Jackson v. State, No. 34A01-1409-CR-455, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 31, 2015).

April 2, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, E. Najam

Probation condition to report within forty-eight hours an arrest or charge for a “new criminal offense” was ambiguous as to whether it applied to an arrest or charge for an offense committed before the probationary period began; holds the ambiguity must be construed against the State, so that the reporting condition did not include arrests or charges for offenses committed before probation began.

Moore v. State, No. 71S00-1405-LW-361, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 24, 2015).

March 26, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

The incredible dubiosity rule is inapplicable in the present case because the factors [1) a sole testifying witness; 2) testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion; and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence] were not present.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 188
  • Page 189
  • Page 190
  • Page 191
  • Page 192
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 329
  • 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