• 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

Kistler v. State, No. 35A04-1004-PC-245, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 15, 2010)

November 22, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Fact that maximum potential sentence of 88 years included 30 years for an invalid habitual offender allegation, which defense counsel failed to observe, did not entitle defendant to relief from his bargained sentence of 28 years, as defendant failed to show that a reasonable defendant would have refused to plead guilty had he known the correct maximum was 58 years.

Reeves v. State, No. 77A04-1005-CR-292, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 16, 2010)

November 22, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden

Use of the crime concealment exception to the statute of limitations requires the State to allege in its charge facts which would establish concealment.

Bunch v. State, No. 49A04-1002-CR-120, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 17, 2010)

November 22, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

Successive confinement of the victim in different places in her home during a burglary/robbery was a single episode of confinement, so that Indiana Double Jeopardy prohibited separate confinement convictions for the confinements in different rooms.

Cranston v. State, No. 29A02-1003-CR-374, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 8, 2010)

November 12, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Datamaster evidence ticket is not “testimonial hearsay” under the Crawford Confrontation Clause holding.

Thomas v. State, No. 49A02-1002-CR-105, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 8, 2010)

November 12, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, E. Brown

Vacates invasion of privacy conviction for protection order subject’s “stop calling me, fagot [sic]” remark to protected person during a court hearing, on basis direct contempt was “more appropriate” remedy.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 282
  • Go to page 283
  • Go to page 284
  • Go to page 285
  • Go to page 286
  • 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