• 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

Chaidez v. United States, No. 11–820, __ U.S. __ (Feb. 20, 2013).

February 22, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: E. Kagan, SCOTUS

The Padilla v. Kentucky Sixth Amendment holding, requiring defense counsel to advise of risk of deportation entailed in a guilty plea, does not have retroactive application to convictions which became final prior to Padilla’s decision date (which was March 31, 2010).

Evans v. Michigan, No. 11-1327, __ U.S. __ (Feb. 20, 2013).

February 22, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. Sotomayor, SCOTUS

A directed verdict of acquittal based on failure to prove an “element” which the trial court erroneously thought was part of the charge was an acquittal for Fifth Amendment double jeopardy purposes.

Jennings v. State, No. 53S01-1209-CR-526, __N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 20, 2013).

February 22, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

“[T]he combined term of imprisonment and probation for a misdemeanor may not exceed one year,” so “[w]e therefore remand this case to the trial court for imposition of a probationary period consistent with this opinion, not to exceed 335 days—the difference between one year (365 days) and the 30 days Jennings was ordered to serve in prison.”

Cutler v. State, No. 71A05-1206-CR-339, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 21, 2013).

February 22, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, R. Shepard

“[T]he State may impeach a testifying defendant by using a prior custodial statement that was indeed recorded but was not ‘available at trial’ as required by Evidence Rule 617 because neither defense counsel nor the prosecutor knew of its existence until trial was under way.”

Jones v. State, No. 49A02-1204-CR-292, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 11, 2013).

February 14, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown, N. Vaidik

Holds that recent U.S. Supreme Court Confrontation Clause decisions do not alter the result in the earlier Indiana holding that breath test equipment certificates of inspection are not “testimonial” and accordingly are admissible without implicating the Confrontation Clause.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 233
  • Go to page 234
  • Go to page 235
  • Go to page 236
  • Go to page 237
  • 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