• 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

Wilkins v. State, No. 02A03-0910-CR-451, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 27, 2010)

July 30, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, M. Barnes

When factors which would justify a “no-knock” residential search were not “exigent,” but rather were known when the search warrant was applied for but not presented to the judge to have judicial authority for a “no-knock” entry, and the policy of the law enforcement agency was to routinely leave the “no-knock” decision to the police team rather than obtaining approval from an independent authority, suppression of the fruits of the “no-knock” search was appropriate under the Indiana Constitution.

Williams v. State, No. 18A02-0911-CR-1092, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 16, 2010)

July 23, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

When two controlled substance possession counts alleged possession of different commercial drugs, Vicodin and Anexsia, when each drug contained the same controlled substance, dihydrocodeinon, there could be only one conviction of possession of a controlled substance.

Donald v. State, No. 23A04-0912-CR-685, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 22, 2010)

July 23, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Due Process requires that a probationer be competent at his probation revocation hearing.

Edwards v. State, No. 49A02-0911-CR-1093, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 13, 2010)

July 16, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Witnesses who testify that the defendant was not present at the scene, as opposed to affirmatively testifying he was at a different place, are not alibi witnesses for whom an alibi notice is required.

In re Subpoena to Crisis Connection, Inc., No. 19A05-0910-CR-602, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 15, 2010)

July 16, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Victim-advocate privilege may be limited by defendant’s constitutional rights, with a three-step test (particularity, relevance, no “paramount interest”) to be met by the defense before there will be an in camera review to determine what victim-advocate communications are to be disclosed.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 289
  • Go to page 290
  • Go to page 291
  • Go to page 292
  • Go to page 293
  • 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