• 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

Carr v. State, No. 25S04-1004-CR-219, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 29, 2010)

October 7, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

For purposes of Criminal Rule 4 analysis, “[e]mploying the rhetoric of ‘delay chargeable to the State’ should be avoided.” Detective’s practice of congenially agreeing defendant had a right to the Miranda counsel he asked for and then continuing the interrogation violated the Edwards rule that interrogation must immediately cease after a counsel demand.

Diaz v. State, No. 20S05–0911–PC–521. __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 29, 2010)

October 7, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme

Post-conviction Spanish translation expert’s chart of translation errors at guilty plea hearing was a demonstrative exhibit erroneously excluded as hearsay. As post-conviction proceeding evidence did not reveal whether guilty plea and sentencing hearings’ Spanish translation was accurate, post-conviction court is directed to commission its own translation of the hearings and rehear evidence.

State v. Hobbs, No. 19S01-1001-CR-10, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 30, 2010)

October 7, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: F. Sullivan, Supreme, T. Boehm

While defendant was being arrested in the restaurant where he worked, a dog sniff alert for drugs in his car parked in the restaurant lot justified a warrantless search of the car under the “automobile exception.”

State v. Lucas, No. 91A05-1003-CR-247, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2010)

October 7, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Portable breath test mouthpiece is not a foreign substance which would invalid a subsequent Datamaster blood alcohol content test.

Long v. State, No. 41A04-0912-CR-743, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2010)

October 7, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam, J. Kirsch

Evidence raised sufficient inference that purchaser under lease-to-purchase contract never intended to pay, so that proof purchaser took furnishings when he moved out sufficed, with intent inference, to prove crime of theft.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 285
  • Go to page 286
  • Go to page 287
  • Go to page 288
  • Go to page 289
  • 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