• 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

Sickels v. State, No. 20A03-1102-CR-66, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2012).

January 13, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Conviction on three counts of nonsupport for failure to pay in gross support order for three children did not violate Indiana Double Jeopardy law’s actual evidence doctrine; nonsupport restitution “victims” were the children, not the custodial parent; restitution order erroneously characterized restitution as “a civil judgment.”

Smith v. Cain, No. 10–8145, 565 U.S. __ (Jan. 20, 2012).

January 13, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: J. Roberts, SCOTUS

State’s failure to disclose to defense the sole eyewitness’s pre-trial statement to detective that he could not identify any of the gunmen, when eyewitness identified defendant at trial as the first gunman, violated the due process prosecution disclosure rule of Brady v. Maryland.

Perry v. New Hampshire, No. 10–8974, 565 U.S. __ (Jan. 11, 2012).

January 13, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Thomas, R. Ginsburg, S. Sotomayor, SCOTUS

Declines to adopt a due process judicial reliability screening procedure for eyewitness identification evidence.

Williams v. State, No. 49A02-1103-CR-266, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 11, 2012).

January 13, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Statutory confidentiality for Board of Pharmacy prescription database protects prescription subject’s physician-patient and pharmacist-patient privileges, and subject’s criminal defense discovery request for prescription records waived these privileges’ protection, so that Board’s objections to disclosure based on confidentiality were without merit.

Dexter v. State, No. 79S05-1106-CR-367, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Jan. 12, 2012).

January 13, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: F. Sullivan, Supreme

In an habitual offender proceeding, “an unsigned judgment is not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the fact of a prior conviction.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 259
  • Page 260
  • Page 261
  • Page 262
  • Page 263
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 330
  • 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