• 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

Wallace v. State, No. 49S02-0803-CR-138, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Apr. 30, 2009)

May 1, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Application of the Sex Offender Registration Act to a person whose sex offense predated the Act violates the Indiana Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause.

Jensen v. State, No. 02S04-0803-CR-137, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Apr. 30, 2009)

May 1, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: F. Sullivan, R. Rucker, Supreme, T. Boehm

The Indiana Ex Post Facto Clause was not violated by application of the 2006 sexually violent predator lifetime registration requirement to a person required to register as a sex offender for ten years under the law in effect when his sex offenses were committed.

Hayworth v. State, No. 07A01-0804-CR-197, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 20, 2009)

April 24, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Continuing objection procedure requires counsel to remain silent during the subsequent admission of the class of evidence subject to the objection. Search warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause due to insufficient corroboration of informant’s statements. Affiant detective’s misleading statements amounted to deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct which “good faith” doctrine would not excuse to save the search.

Arizona v. Gant, No. 07-542, __ U.S. __ (April 21, 2009)

April 24, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: A. Scalia, J. Stevens, S. Alito, S. Breyer, SCOTUS

Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

Benefield v. State, No. 41A01-0806-CR-272, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2009)

April 9, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, M. May

[W]hile a defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of the instrument may be relevant to show intent to defraud, it is not an essential element of forgery.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 314
  • Go to page 315
  • Go to page 316
  • Go to page 317
  • Go to page 318
  • 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