• 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

Morris v. State, No. 14A05-1209-CR-495, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 23, 2013).

August 29, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker, M. Barnes

A trial court may order restitution in a case in which there is a plea bargain silent on the restitution issue as long as the bargain is “open” and leaves sentencing entirely to the court’s discretion.

Garrett v. State, No. 49S04-1207-PC-431, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Aug. 28, 2013).

August 29, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, R. Rucker, Supreme

“[T]he ‘actual evidence’ test . . . is applicable to cases in which there has been an acquittal on one charge and retrial on another charge after a hung jury.”

Oney v. State, No. 49S05-1212-CR-668, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Aug. 28, 2013).

August 29, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

“Although a defendant who pleads guilty to driving while suspended as a habitual traffic violator may not later challenge the plea contending that an underlying offense has been set aside on grounds of procedural error, a defendant may be entitled to relief where an underlying offense has been set aside on grounds of material error.”

Johnson v. State, No. 49A02-1301-CR-28, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 20, 2013).

August 22, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Rejects arguments that traffic stop, based on officer’s belief vehicle was in violation of the Window Tint Statute, was illegal under the Indiana Constitution or violated an implicit prohibition in the Statute itself of “unbridled discretion” for police to pull over vehicles with window tint.

Walls v. State, No. 55A05-1211-CR-603, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 22, 2013).

August 22, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown, P. Riley

Tenants had a sufficient possessory interest in their apartment doors and thresholds and the immediate adjacent areas to request, for criminal trespass purposes, that a person leave those areas and stop banging on their doors.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 222
  • Go to page 223
  • Go to page 224
  • Go to page 225
  • Go to page 226
  • 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