• 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

Hundley v. State, No. 24A01-1010-CR-550, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 14, 2011).

July 15, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Entire weight of “pill dough” produced in intermediate step in methamphetamine manufacture was properly considered as methamphetamine in excess of 3 grams required for A felony manufacturing.

Butler V. State, No. 84A01-1008-CR-414, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 27, 2011)

July 1, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Greer v. State’s holding, that a probationer who proceeds pro se and admits the petition need not be advised of the “pitfalls of self-representation,” applies despite decision in Hopper v. State requiring guilty plea advice of dangers of proceeding pro se and “that an attorney is usually more experienced in plea negotiations and better able to identify and evaluate any potential defenses and evidentiary or procedural problems in the prosecution’s case.”

Lemmon V. Harris, No. 52S02-1011-CV-642, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 28, 2011)

July 1, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: F. Sullivan, Supreme

1994 sex offender’s transformation “by operation of law” into sexually violent predator under 2007 legislation did not violate Indiana ex post facto protections or Indiana separation of powers provision.

Moore V. State, No. 49S04-1101-CR-24, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. June 28, 2011)

July 1, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Defendant, a passenger in a car “in a state of intoxication caused by the person’s use of alcohol or a controlled substance,” was properly convicted of public intoxication, because a vehicle stopped along a highway is “public place or a place of public resort.”

Garcia-Torres V. State, No. 64S03-0912-CR-550, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. June 30, 2011)

July 1, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme

Defendant’s consent to the swab of his cheek for DNA was voluntary, so the swab did not violate the Fourth Amendment; further, a Pirtle advisement was not warranted before the swab was taken.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 265
  • Go to page 266
  • Go to page 267
  • Go to page 268
  • Go to page 269
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 323
  • 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