• 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

Hancz-Barron v. State, No. 22S-LW-310, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 26, 2024).

July 1, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

To recommend LWOP, the jury must (1) find the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one statutory aggravator exists, (2) provide a special verdict form for each aggravating circumstance alleged, and (3) find that any mitigating circumstances that exist are outweighed by the aggravating circumstance or circumstances. If those three steps are satisfied and the jury recommends LWOP, the court shall sentence the defendant accordingly. Moreover, depending on the circumstances of the crime(s), consecutive life sentences for each murder victim does not render the sentence disproportionate.

Feeman v. State, No. 23A-CR-2503, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 24, 2024).

June 24, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

When a defendant is charged with a crime against another person, the victim’s identity is a material element of the offense that the State must specifically allege in the charging information and then prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anderson v. State, No. 24A-CR-152, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 24, 2024).

June 24, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

The affirmative defense of human trafficking does not negate any elements of a prostitution charge; rather, it operates by entirely excusing the culpability for engaging in prostitution. Accordingly, a defendant may properly be assigned the burden to prove the defense by a preponderance of evidence.

Tyree v. State, No. 23A-CR-2153, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 14, 2024).

June 17, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Ind. Code 35-38-4-2(a)(5), which permits the State to appeal “from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence, if the ultimate effect of the order is to preclude further prosecution of one (1) or more counts of an information or indictment,” focuses on the effect of the trial court’s ruling: whether the ruling on the defendant’s motion prevents the State from presenting evidence necessary to prove its case.

Brackenridge v. State, No. 23A-CR-2496, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 29, 2024).

June 3, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

To be classified as a serious violent felon, a defendant must have been convicted of a statutory listed felony. If a defendant’s qualifying felony conviction is reduced to a misdemeanor by virtue of the AMS statute, a defendant would no longer qualify as a serious violent felon.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • Go to page 8
  • Go to page 9
  • Go to page 10
  • 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