• 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

Lucas v. McDonald, No. 63A04-1010-PL-644, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 15, 2011).

September 16, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Sex offender registration relief statute confers discretion on court to deny relief even though the court finds the petitioner has made the showings required by the remedy statute to qualify for relief or, in the absence of findings, even though the evidence in the record would support a decision the petitioner made the required showings.

Coleman v. State, No. 49A02-1101-CR-12, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2011).

September 2, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

For purpose of the consecutive sentencing statute, a conspiracy to commit a “crime of violence” is not itself a “crime of violence.”

Henderson v. State, No. 20A03-1102-PC-108, __N.E.2d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 2011).

September 2, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

U.S. Supreme Court’s Gant, which did away with “brightline” rule allowing searches of passenger compartments at the time the driver was arrested even if driver was no longer within reaching distance of the vehicle, does not apply to a pre-Gant “brightline” search legal when made under the Court’s former New York v. Belton precedent.

Alter v. State, No. 85A04-1101-CR-44, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 31, 2011).

September 2, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

After conservation officer had been shown subject’s fishing license, further detention for questions based on officer’s hunch subject might have put marijuana in his duffle was unsupported by reasonable suspicion and required suppression of marijuana subject produced on officer’s command to “give me your marijuana.”

Feuston v. State, No. 38A02-1011-CR-1175, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 19, 2011).

August 26, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Trial court has no duty to set a trial date when defendant absconds and fails to appear; Criminal Rule 4(C) one year did not begin to run until defendant’s notice of his incarceration in another county and request for trial were received by the trial court and the prosecutor; fact jail may have known of defendant’s presence in the other county was not attributable to court and prosecutor in this case.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 261
  • Go to page 262
  • Go to page 263
  • Go to page 264
  • Go to page 265
  • 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