• 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

Straw v. State, No. 19A-CR-934, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2019).

September 30, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, R. Pyle

Person convicted of voyeurism did not have to register as a sex offender because legislature did not include that offense in its list of crimes requiring registration.

Easler v. State, No. 19S-CR-324, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 20, 2019).

September 23, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

When a party requests a hearing on possible juror bias or misconduct, after voir dire and selection but before the jury is sworn, a trial court should hold such a hearing if the party demonstrates some relevant basis for that bias or misconduct.

Paquette v. State, No. 19S-CR-502, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 11, 2019).

September 16, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

The proper sentence to avoid double jeopardy violation, where defendant caused three deaths while operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs and fleeing police, was guilt for one count of Level 3 felony resisting law enforcement causing death; two counts of Level 4 felony operating causing death; and one count of Level 6 felony operating causing serious bodily injury.

Archer v. State, No. 18A-PC-2681, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 12, 2019).

September 16, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

The presence of even one biased juror on the jury is a structural error requiring a new trial, and appellate counsel had an obligation to review the entire record of the trial proceedings, including the voir dire transcript.

Pulido v. State, No. 19A-CR-834, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 12, 2019).

September 16, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, R. Pyle

It is not a crime to simply be intoxicated in public, and to sustain a public intoxication conviction based on personal endangerment, the state must show proof beyond a reasonable doubt and not by merely speculating that the person may be in some future danger.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 71
  • Go to page 72
  • Go to page 73
  • Go to page 74
  • Go to page 75
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 325
  • 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 © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs