• 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

Hape v. State, No. 63A01-0804-CR-175, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 31, 2009)

April 3, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Hape v. State (Ind. Ct. App., Vaidik, J.) – As text messages are intrinsic to the cell phones in which they are stored, messages played by jurors in deliberations on a phone admitted without objection as an exhibit could not be used to impeach the jury’s verdict. Text messages are subject to authentication separate from that offered for the phone they are on.

Vermont v. Brillon, No. 08-88, __ U.S. __ (Mar. 9, 2009)

March 13, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Ginsburg, SCOTUS

Under 6th Amendment speedy trial right, the delays in trial attributable to continuances and other extensions sought by appointed defense counsel, many due to defendant’s intransigence, were not chargeable to the State.

Shotts v. State, No. 71A03-0808-CR-400, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 12, 2009)

March 13, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

“Good faith” exception did not save arrest on Alabama arrest warrant which was based on a completely conclusory affidavit; fact arresting Indiana officers never had seen the warrant or affidavit did not alter the result.

Harrison v. State, No. 49A04-0807-CR-423, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2009)

March 6, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

“Defense” to within-1,000-feet-of-park drug crime enhancement that defendant was “briefly” in the zone and no person under 18 was present is a mitigating factor like “sudden heat” which State must rebut if evidence puts it in issue.

Young v. State, No. 06A01-0808-CR-395, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2009)

March 6, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Affirms condition not to drive during entire eight year probation period, even though it was six years more than the maximum statutory license suspension.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 316
  • Go to page 317
  • Go to page 318
  • Go to page 319
  • Go to page 320
  • 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