• 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

State v. Brooks-Brown 24A-CR-627, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 16, 2024).

October 21, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, P. Mathias, R. Altice

Evidence that a person was an alleged victim of human trafficking at the time of an alleged crime may be used to dispute the mens rea required to prove the charged crime.

FG v. State, No. 24A-CR-560, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 4, 2024).

October 7, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Accessing obscene animated child pornography from one’s own home is protected conduct under the First Amendment.

Basso v. State, No. 24A-CR-500, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 24, 2024).

September 27, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

A crime victim does not commit perjury merely by changing his opinion regarding the proper punishment for the defendant at the defendant’s sentencing hearing.

Anderson v. State, No. 23A-CR-02609, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 4, 2024).

September 9, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Foley

The grand jury statutory framework does not mandate that the State submit a matter for deliberation as to whether to issue an indictment. The State need not identify or name the target of the grand jury proceeding and identify the crime that the target was alleged to have committed unless the grand jury proceeds to deliberate on whether to issue an indictment.

Seabolt, Dillard, Tyson, and Robinson v. State, No. 24S-PC-270, 24S-PC-271, 24S-PC-272, 24S-PC-273, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 20, 2024).

August 26, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, D. Molter

Once a judge concludes their recusal is mandatory, they must continue recusing in future cases when confronted with the same concern that led them to recuse in the prior case. That is, unless their prior recusal was mistaken or circumstances have changed so that their recusal is no longer mandatory, in which case they again have a duty to preside.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • 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