• 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

Boggs v. State, No. 18S-CR-430, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 23, 2018).

August 27, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Proof of the “slightest penetration” of the female sex organ, including penetration of the external genitalia, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for child molestation based on sexual intercourse.

Jackson v. State, No. 18S-CR-00113, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 24, 2018).

August 27, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

Based on the general inquiry from the Coble decision on the habitual offender enhancement statute and the unambiguous language of the criminal gang enhancement statute, a trial court on remand from a reversal of a criminal gang enhancement must resentence the defendant on all the felonies underlying that enhancement.

Crittendon v. State, No. 18A-CR-206, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 8, 2018).

August 13, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Defendant was properly convicted of possession of heroin, without the introduction of the drug itself, when he admitted using heroin and showed clear signs of a heroin overdose.

Hall v. State, No. 17A-CR-3022, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 1, 2018).

August 6, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

“[W]e need not decide whether there might have been any error in the filing of the petition by the prosecuting attorney instead of the director of community corrections because we hold that any potential error was a procedural, not jurisdictional, error.”

Fairbanks v. State, No. 49A02-1707-CR-1675, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 1, 2018).

August 6, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik, R. Pyle

The trial court properly admitted evidence that the defendant’s daughter’s death was no accident under Evid. Rule 404(b)’s lack-of-accident purpose, even though the defendant did not affirmatively claim mistake or accident.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 93
  • Go to page 94
  • Go to page 95
  • Go to page 96
  • Go to page 97
  • 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