• 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

Moore v. State, No. 29A02-1507-CR-866, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2015).

November 9, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of failure to register as a sex offender, even though he had moved to Kentucky and was no longer an Indiana resident, because as under I.C. § 11-8-8-17(a)(5) provides, he had knowingly ceased to reside at the Indiana address he had previously registered.

Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Vawter, No. 49S00-1407-PL-494, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 6, 2015).

November 9, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Personalized license plates are government speech.

Williams v. State, No. 48S05-1507-CR-424, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Oct. 26, 2015).

November 2, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Officer’s testimony that “there’s zero doubt in my mind that this was a transaction for cocaine” was an opinion on the ultimate issue of guilt in violation of Ind. Evidence Rule 704(b), but was harmless error.

Powell v. State, No. 49A02-1503-CR-135, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2015).

November 2, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Trespass conviction was reversed for insufficient evidence that the defendant was still on a bar’s property at the time he was told to leave.

Berg v. State, No. 32A01-1504-CR-127, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2015).

November 2, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Convictions for D-felony OWI (elevated from A-misdemeanor OWI with endangerment because of a prior OWI conviction) and B-misdemeanor reckless driving did not violate Richardson actual-evidence double jeopardy. “Evidentiary footprint” of the offenses was not identical because OWI, unlike reckless driving, required proof of intoxication. Nor did both convictions rely on “the very same behavior” because offense would have been elevated to a felony because of the prior conviction, regardless of whether it involved endangerment.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 300
  • Go to page 301
  • Go to page 302
  • Go to page 303
  • Go to page 304
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 587
  • 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