• 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

Appeals

Lacey v. State, No. 18A-CR-2623, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 23, 2019).

May 28, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

The imposition of a thirteen-year habitual offender enhancement was improper because the two prior out-of-state Level 3 felony convictions had to be treated as Level 6 felony convictions under the Indiana statute in force at the time (February 16, 2017). The legislature amended the definition of a “Level 6 felony” for purposes of the habitual offender enhancement effective March 8, 2018.

In re L.S., No. 18A-JT-2881, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 21, 2019).

May 28, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Drug test results do not fall under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay.

Lewis v. Putnam Cnty. Sheriff’s Dept., No. 18A-MI-1869, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 23, 2019).

May 28, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

State was ordered to immediately reimburse money taken by civil forfeiture when the cash was prematurely turned over to the federal government and there was no evidence that a crime occurred.

Gary v. State, No. 18A-CR-2067, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 9, 2019).

May 13, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Because some or all of the evidence could be used to prove defendant committed both felony intimidation and attempted murder, the conviction of intimidation is vacated as it violates his right against double jeopardy under the actual evidence test.

In re Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of S.K., No. 18A-JT-2200, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 13, 2019).

May 13, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Children’s statements made to therapist regarding whether the children were aware that father killed their mother and whether they understood that they could visit Father were not admissible hearsay under the medical diagnosis exception because children likely did not understand that they were making statements to the therapist for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 113
  • Go to page 114
  • Go to page 115
  • Go to page 116
  • Go to page 117
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 404
  • 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