• 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

Tyler v. State, No. 69S04-0801-CR-3, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 31, 2009)

April 3, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, F. Sullivan, T. Boehm

[A] party may not introduce testimony via the Protected Person Statute if the same person testifies in open court as to the same matters.

Gray v. State, No. 10S01-0808-CR-476, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 31, 2009)

April 3, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Supreme, T. Boehm

Defendant’s behavior and statements at the two separate robberies were sufficient, without more, to prove that he had a “gun” in his pocket, but his apprehension immediately after the second robbery with only an electric shaver in his pocket precluded an “armed” enhancement for that robbery.

Booker v. State, No. 45A03-0806-CR-281, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 25, 2009)

April 3, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Providing defense with defendant’s inculpatory statement to officer would have been “right,” but the State’s failure to disclose was not a discovery violation, as discovery order did not include an unrecorded oral statement and State has no independent duty to provide defense with inculpatory evidence.

Hape v. State, No. 63A01-0804-CR-175, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 31, 2009)

April 3, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Hape v. State (Ind. Ct. App., Vaidik, J.) – As text messages are intrinsic to the cell phones in which they are stored, messages played by jurors in deliberations on a phone admitted without objection as an exhibit could not be used to impeach the jury’s verdict. Text messages are subject to authentication separate from that offered for the phone they are on.

Estate of Mintz v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., No. 49S05-0805-CV-214, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Mar. 25, 2009)

March 27, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Proximate cause, comparative fault allocation, and whether (and to what extent) defendant acted as a “reasonably prudent person” are questions of fact for the fact-finder to resolve.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 575
  • Go to page 576
  • Go to page 577
  • Go to page 578
  • Go to page 579
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 589
  • 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