• 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

Gray v. State, No. 10S01-0808-CR-476, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 31, 2009)

April 3, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Supreme, T. Boehm

Defendant’s behavior and statements at the two separate robberies were sufficient, without more, to prove that he had a “gun” in his pocket, but his apprehension immediately after the second robbery with only an electric shaver in his pocket precluded an “armed” enhancement for that robbery.

Booker v. State, No. 45A03-0806-CR-281, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 25, 2009)

April 3, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Providing defense with defendant’s inculpatory statement to officer would have been “right,” but the State’s failure to disclose was not a discovery violation, as discovery order did not include an unrecorded oral statement and State has no independent duty to provide defense with inculpatory evidence.

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.

  • « 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 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