• 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

Young v. State, No. 22A-CR-2923, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 14, 2023).

August 14, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

The testimony of a police officer, by itself, that he was acting as an agent of the property owner is insufficient to establish that the officer was in fact an agent of the owner. Therefore, a police officer who is neither an owner of a property nor an agent of an owner of a property cannot create a trespass violation by asking a patron to leave and then arrest the patron when they refuse to do so.

Nance v. State, No. 22A-CR-2581, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 3, 2023).

August 7, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, L. Weissmann

Opening a door to answer a knock by police, neither abandons a person’s privacy interest in their home, nor is it an invitation to the officers knocking to enter the home. Moreover, probable cause alone is not enough to justify a warrantless search of a home. It must be joined with exigent circumstances to dispense with the warrant requirement.

Hochstetler v. State, No. 22A-CR-02154, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 31, 2023).

July 31, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Under the intimidation statute, actual malice is based on the mindset of the defendant when the defamatory words are communicated, not their intention while contemplating the defamatory act. Inherent in actual malice is the necessity for speech to be disseminated rather than merely threatened. Moreover, criminal conduct is not protected by the church-autonomy doctrine even if carried out using communications about church doctrine or policy.

Hinton v. State, No. 23A-CR-107, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 21, 2023).

July 25, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

The plain-view exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement allows an officer to seize an object without a warrant if (1) the officer is lawfully in a position from which to view the object, (2) the incriminating character of the object is immediately apparent, and (3) the officer has a lawful right of access to the object.

State v. Lyons, No. 23S-CR-163, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 27, 2023).

July 3, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: D. Molter, Supreme

Before excluding evidence as a Trial Rule 37 discovery sanction, a trial court must find that the exclusion is the sole remedy available to avoid substantial prejudice, or that the sanctioned party’s culpability reflects an egregious discovery violation.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 18
  • Go to page 19
  • Go to page 20
  • Go to page 21
  • Go to page 22
  • 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