• 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

Gilbert v. State, No. 49A04-1102-CR-77, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 26, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Undercover officer’s statement that he wanted sex from prostitution suspect were not hearsay and accordingly were not subject to Confrontation Clause protection, and defendant in any event had opportunity to confront second officer when he testified as to the first’s statement.

Turner v. State, No. 49S00-0912-CR-565, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 28, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Indiana Rule of Evidence 702(b) permitted admission of “tool mark” expert’s “identification” opinion that marks on unfired cartridge found in defendant’s girlfriend’s home matched marks on fired cartridge casings found at murder scene, even though the firearm which might have made the “tool marks” was never found.

Conder v. State, No. 49A02-1012-PC-1404, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 9, 2011).

September 16, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Depending on the manner in which they are used (here, to kick a person to death), feet and shoes can be a statutory “deadly weapon.”

Reese v. State, No. 38A05-1104-CR-171, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 14, 2011).

September 16, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Trial court erred in concluding defendant was not indigent for purposes of appointment of counsel paid at public expense.

Vaughn v. State, No. 45A05-1102-CR-5, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 14, 2011).

September 16, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander, N. Vaidik

Mistrial was required when bailiff, at court’s direction, restrained defendant and placed a hand over defendant’s mouth as jurors were leaving the courtroom after defendant, about to testify in his own behalf, launched into a criticism of defense counsel which continued despite court’s orders to stop.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 260
  • Go to page 261
  • Go to page 262
  • Go to page 263
  • Go to page 264
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 324
  • 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