• 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

Swallow v. State, No. 89A01-1401-CR-24, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 28, 2014).

October 30, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Special prosecutor was not required when defense counsel joined the prosecutor’s office as a deputy, since adequate steps were taken to insure that the former defense counsel had no communications of any sort with other members of the prosecutor’s office about defendant’s case.

Campbell v. State, No. 13S05-1410-PC-682, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 30, 2014).

October 30, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Indiana Pattern Jury Instructions – Criminal No. 9.05’s second sentence in its “intentionally” definition (“[i]f a person is charged with intentionally causing a result by his conduct, it must have been his conscious objective not only to engage in the conduct but also to cause the result”) “represents a correct statement of the law.”

Carpenter v. State, No. 02S05-1404-CR-246, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 21, 2014).

October 23, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

Police’s warrantless home entry through open back door to retrieve an aggressive and bloody dog violated the Indiana Constitution, Article I, § 11 protection against unreasonable search.

Gallien v. State, No. 22A01-1402-PC-50, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2014).

October 23, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, M. Barnes

Two burglaries committed one after the other, four miles apart, were a single episode of criminal conduct subject to the cap on consecutive sentencing, and appellate counsel’s assistance was ineffective for failure to raise the issue as a sentencing error.

Harris v. State, No. 02A03-1402-CR-73, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2014).

October 23, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Exigent circumstances justified officers’ warrantless seizure of a handgun they saw defendant place inside an apartment front door as they approached, so that the seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Indiana Constitution, Article I, § 11.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 194
  • Go to page 195
  • Go to page 196
  • Go to page 197
  • Go to page 198
  • 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